.

EDITORIAL

CRISIS MANAGEMENT GROUP

Hostile environs prevalent in Jammu & Kashmir in particular and rest of the country in general calls for creation of permanent Crisis Management Group at the state level as also at the Centre. As regards this state hardly ....more

POLITICKING

American President Bill Clinton continues to equate India and Pakistan in its global perceptions after visible tilt in favour of India in the post-Kargil period. This time round he takes extra pains to reflect Kashmir as the 'most dangerous issue' in world. This is like using ...more

Private life of public people

By B K Karkra
Millennia back, Rama sacrificed his soul, Sita, just to preserve his image of ‘maryada pururshotam’ (a great man who will not do ...more

Fin de siecle dilemma of hero-worshippers

By V. Y. Kantak
Try and imagine what the weeks just before the turn of the first millennium must have been like. ..more

Socio-economic goals for twenty-first century

By Prof. A. N. Sadhu
Within a day from now, the world will wake up to 'Good-morning 2000'. Historical occasions like this are used to review the past and ....more

EDITORIAL

CRISIS MANAGEMENT GROUP

Hostile environs prevalent in Jammu & Kashmir in particular and rest of the country in general calls for creation of permanent Crisis Management Group at the state level as also at the Centre. As regards this state hardly a day passes when some or the other headquarters are not targetted by the determined terrorists. The latest attack on SOG headquarters comes close on the heels of similar attacks on army and para-military formations. Incidentally all such targets are located in high security zones which by any reckoning ought to be impregnable. The fact and ground realities do speak otherwise as if all such headquarters are the most vulnerable. At this stage, it has to be dealt with in two directions. First, tightening of the security with second and third line guard systems in sufficient strength to protect the vital installations and the personnel deployed thereof. Currently it is a single guard system at the entry point and once that guard is shot down alongwith one or two more guarding the place, the terrorists are in a position to occupy and blast vital targets inside. The system needed in the prevailing environs has to be at least three-tier. First the guards and a little distance away another set of guards and in the rear atop certain high building with vantage position yet another highly skilled formation so that the intruders are neutralised well before they reach the vital installations. This is for the respective force i.e police, para-military or the Army to evolve pilfer-proof mechanism to deny the enemy any publicity in terms of access and damage inflicted thereon.

The second aspect has to be put in place in the form of Crisis Management Cell or Group or give it any nomenclature. It may be mentioned the state has only Unified Headquarters and meetings held are far and few. The system in vogue is such which can at best react belatedly when the damage is already inflicted. For instance, it took almost twenty four hours to put the act together in killing just two terrorists that had penetrated high security SOG headquarters. Some people flew from Jammu. For gathering others it took time and ultimately the reaction can best be termed as desperate one with no other option. In the process many precious lives are lost including one Dy S P while killing only two terrorists. It also meant mining of one's own complex. It is in such like situation that Crisis Management Group should become operative within minutes, not hours or days. The reaction has to be automatic without any loss of time. This group should invariably have full involvement of Army which is best equipped to tackle any emerging or prevailing situation. Sophisticated weapons, high mobility (including helicopters) and highly trained and motivated personnel should be there besides clear orders to become operative instantly without waiting for any orders from political bosses. In fact, the entire team has to be high-powered including the political representative to tackle the situation as deemed best. Present culture of wait and watch is self-destructive and self-deceptive. The sooner Crisis Management Group is created the better for the state. It has become indispensable in view of the open statements of Pak rulers to give fresh boost to insurgency in the state and create many more Kargil-like situations. You can't tackle determined and highly motivated enemy with kid-glove policy or with passing the buck or putting the act together belatedly and that too piecemeal.

At the central level, the need for such Crisis Management Group has never been so urgent as now after the recent hijacking episode. It is precisely because of the absence of such group that has resulted in the hijacked aircraft getting no permission to land in Lucknow and letting the aircraft take-off after about forty minutes halt in Amritsar. It may be mentioned that the entire country is in the thick of Pak sponsored terrorism which shows no sign of abatement. One can take cue from the USA where Federal Bureau of Investigation has such a group called 'Critical Incident Response Group' comprising of 300 top-notch personnel drawn from different specialities. The group is so conditioned and trained that it effectively intervenes in any critical situation, including terrorist acts and hijacks. This is despite the fact that America does not face direct terrorism but only indirect threats. In India, the terrorists are very much active right inside and continue to inflict one damage after another, each needing brains and brawns to tackle. Besides, the American Group is available round the clock with high mobility to move in the impacted zone immediately. There is thus the urgent need for creating such a group in India involving armed forces actively unlike present crisis management that excluded them totally. It is one thing to temporarily create Crisis Management Group to tackle a particular crisis situation and hold daily cabinet meetings. It is quite another to have a standing Crisis Management Group that is high-powered, highly competent and self-contained besides being highly mobile. The need for such group has never been so urgent as now. In fact, central group so formed ought to have its high-efficiency and operative cells in all the impacted zones for rapid action and reaction to any emerging situation.

POLITICKING

American President Bill Clinton continues to equate India and Pakistan in its global perceptions after visible tilt in favour of India in the post-Kargil period. This time round he takes extra pains to reflect Kashmir as the 'most dangerous issue' in world. This is like using Pak dictators language who have already declared repeatedly Kashmir as the 'nuclear flashpoint'. In justification thereof, Clinton cites both India and Pakistan being nuclear powers and to that extent sub-continent sits on a powder keg. Clinton conveniently forgets that ever since culimnation of second World War in 1945, former Soviet Union and USA, both nuclear powers, have been at daggers drawn with their respective missiles targetting each others cities. They are still in position. There have been many flash points worldwide for them to use their nuclear weapons all through the cold war period. Till date it is recorded that USA has upto 1100 various types of nuclear weapons enough to blast the good earth many times over. It is closely followed by Russia with about 1000 nuclear bombs. Next comes China and France. They each have about 4 to 5 hundred bombs of various sizes followed by Great Britain with just 150 bombs. India has the indigenous potential of acquiring what the Chinese and French have while Pakistan can at best manage around 60 unless it succeeds in clandestine procurement of fissile material from some rogue central Asian republics. To that extent even when tow super powers have been at daggers drawn for years with many flashpoints the world over, nuclear weapons have remained only deterrents. Clinton is thus quite off-course to declare Kashmir is the most dangerous issue in the world. It is an attempt to appease Pakistan after relative tilt in favour of treating India and Pakistan on separate pedastals. This singular statement boosts up Pak military rulers to accelerate terrorism. It is strange that so soon after signing Washington Declaration when America asked Pakistan to withdraw from Kargil, respect LoC and stop trans-border terrorism in J&K, Clinton indulges in somersaults. It is pertinent to note that it has taken America 5 days to criticise hijack of IA plane. It is equally important to note that America has not acceded to the request of Russia to convene immediate Security Council meet for taking tentative action against the hijackers and those who sponsored it namely Pakistan. India has rightly objected to Kashmir being declared as the most dangerous issue.

Private life of public people

By B K Karkra

Millennia back, Rama sacrificed his soul, Sita, just to preserve his image of ‘maryada pururshotam’ (a great man who will not do anything improper). The incident, however, has been described in a manner that neither the pristine purity of Sita is held in doubt not the motives of Rama can be called to question. Rama is, in fact, seen to have torn his heart out at the altar of appropriateness. This really meant that the rulers had no right to private life and lived only to please their people.

Ramayana's Rama is, however, considered an incarnation of God and God, for sure, is not a being of history. The human beings with history, whether high or low, have always asserted their right to a private life. The desertion of Sita by Rama would also, when viewed from the human angle, appear to be the only inappropriate thing that he had ever done in his life. In fact, the public men who have lived a verifiable life on this Earth mostly had all the usual weaknesses of flesh.

The most important case of our times that illustrates this point is the recent Clinton-Lewinsky affair. The truth about this unseemly episode already stands placed "on the hill-top in noonday sun" for all the world to see. As per the facts admitted, they were involved in every thing that man and woman do, except the final act. Why they stopped short of the real thing is, of course, a little intriguing. Perhaps something was held back to avoid the charge of perjury.

The whole thing, as admitted, did not even amount to fornication which also is no offence in the U.S. and in fact, most parts of the world, including India. It was really nothing more than an ‘inappropriate sexual relationship, specially in the context of the American ethos. Under the Islamic laws, however, fornication is a capital offence - just call to mind the case of the Saudi princess and her lover who were put to death for this very crime some years back.

The consensual element of the episode was also not in doubt. Lewinsky, indeed, was a consenting party and being a major and a mentally sound person, was legally competent to give a valid consent. So, there was no question of any allegation of rape being brought against Clinton. What the President admitted during his examination by Starr did not amount to sexual inter-course in law. However, even proper sex with an unmarried woman (Lewinsky happened to be unmarried) in the state of Washington (where the incident took place), as in India and many other states of the U.S.A., could never amount to the offence of adultry either. Under the benefit of clever legal advice, Clinton was able to wriggle out of the possible charge of perjury also.

What then was the fuss about and what exactly was so revolting in this drama ? Man and woman have been meeting and bloods mixing since the times immemorial. In privacy, they say and do all sorts of funny things - even far beyond what Clinton and Monica have said and done. What feels decent inside a bed-room, looks dirty outside. Love in privacy is vulgarity in public. Even the most illustrious names of our history - Ashoka, Akbar and Ranjit Singh must consider themselves lucky in this regard that democracy and Starr were not around during their times. And then, what about Napolean, Hitler, Sukarno, Prince Charles, Nehru, Mitrrand and so many of our present day celebrities. If somebody thinks that it is really his business to peep through the keyholes, he is bound to see lot of such fair laid before him. The real fault of Clinton seems to be that he happened to violate what some call the Eleventh Commandment i.e. "Thou shalt not be caught". Had he known that the blue garments of the lady would later cause him all this trouble, he would have surely put these out of the way and also given her a shower to ensure that she carried nothing of him outside the White House.

What was the provocation to pry into the privacy of the President ? The source of most of such dirty things is, of course, politics. What should really shock the world conscience is not what Clinton and Monica did in the study of the White House, but the vulgar politicisation of the whole affair. It is high time that the world rises to its right to privacy. Life without privacy will not be worth living. It is gratifying that the American public and even the common man in our own streets reacted to the episode with maturity and understanding. It was only the politicians who were out with their long knives to make the killing. All the top legal advice available to the otherwise illustrious President would have failed to save him, if his opponents could somehow muster the requisite majority of two-thirds in the Senate for his impeachment.

Fortunately, a fair number of us are monogamous by nature and have the realisation that the sex does not involve the baring of bodies alone, but the entire being. When you repeat the same words of love to the second woman something of essence is surely missing in the delivery. What Clinton did was mainly of relevance to him and his wife. It is a private burden that he was to carry on his mind. Things should have been left at that and the world should not have wasted its time over it.

Law and society have already drawn their lines - law bans rape, adultry, the nuisance of soliciting for sex and unnatural inter-course etc. and the societies despise incest as a cardinal sin. Beyond this socio-legal line, the liberal societies like to leave the matters to individual inclinations. The other rider that may stop an individual in the pursuit of his happiness is the constraints of his public office. The private life certainly cannot be allowed to come in the way of the public duty. Once, however, a person is discharging his public duties well, he should be free to life his private life the way he wants.

Fin de siecle dilemma of hero-worshippers

By V. Y. Kantak

Try and imagine what the weeks just before the turn of the first millennium must have been like. Would there have been so much hype and expectation on the eve of the year 1000? Were people planning of Y1K which would halt caravans and snuff out oil lamps? Most intriguingly, were marketing types planning contests about the man of the millennium?

Perhaps not, but certainly this millennium even everyone seem to be engaged in coming up with names for the "person of the century". The bold and the beautiful, the cruel and the saintly, the obvious and the obscure, all kinds of names are being tossed about as inspirational models for this generation.

Some names suggest themselves. Gandhi seems to be popping up not only in India but apparently also in international polls, thanks mainly to the millions of online Indians who have taken it up as a campaign. But, alas, there are others equally adept at this double-click democracy and the poor Mahatma (who was never too fond of technology anyway) is slipping behind. Not everyone has the same concept about heroes and it is a moot point if even every Indians views Gandhi in the same light. (Some have even named another Gandhi, Indira, as a heroine, but such heresies are not permitted in this day and age.)

If the yardstick of having influenced the lives of millions is applied, then surely Hitler would make the cut. Evil he may have been, but is there any doubt about his profound impact on 20th century history? Then, again, what about Mao Tse Tung or Lenin, both of whom shook the world? The West may have hated them, but they were heroes to their own people. (So what if Lenin has been forgotten in his own land?)

If revolutionaries are to be considered, can Che Guevara's claim be overlooked? The man who launched a million posters and t-shirts was no mean strategist himself and his popularity extended to all corners of the world much after his death. Agreed, he has been replaced by Leonardo di Caprio as the world's most famous pin-up, but he was a hero to an entire generation.

But why should only political leaders classify as "heroes"? They don't bring pleasure the way actors, singers or writers do. A song by Lata Mangeshkar would bring tears to the eyes of an Indian who is away from his homeland, but can the same be said about any politician? Elvis Presley drove teenagers to frenzy in the 1950s and 1960s as did the Beatles (who said they were more famous than Jesus Christ) a little later, crossing class, community and cultural barriers; they were icons of their times and their appeal has still not faded. Surely, they deserve to be in any list?

The same applies to sportsmen. Millions would gladly vote for Muhammed Ali or Pele, both of whom had a certain nobility about them in the ring and the field. (Bobby Fischer too was a poet of the chessboard, but was too badly behaved to qualify as a role model.) Indians would not hesitate to name Sunil Gavaskar for the sheer joy and pride he evoked and surely Sir Donald Bradman is the greatest cricketer of all time.

And not to forget the wealth creators Henry Ford, the steel barons, the builders and of course, the new IT-kids on the block. Surely the founder of Amazon Inc. qualifies as a visionary too. In India, Dhirubhai Ambani or Verghese Kurien have built institutions, created wealth and brought prosperity to millions: Their lives are no less inspirational.

Heroes all, symbols of overriding ambition, vision, talent and an ability to go beyond the mundane. And with another factor that is common: Most of our heroes are from another era, a generation much before the present one. It would appear that all those who profoundly affected this century existed only in distant history. The political figures mostly of pre-second world war vintage, the popular icons from the 1950s, '60s, or '70s. There is no Mrs. Margaret Thatcher who broke the economic shackles of the past, no Mikhail Gorbachov who demolished a superpower, no Michael Jackson or Madonna whose records sell in the zillions. Our yearning for heroes takes us back to the past and towards names that have become mythical and legendary; it also helps if they are dead.

It is also not intriguing that our heroes lived at a time when the media was not so obtrusive, nor obsessive about the private lives of the famous. Gandhi was never asked his views on films and neither did the Chinese know (or care) about Mao's love affairs.

Somewhere along the way perhaps, the hero disappeared and the celebrity was born. Even before satellite television, the mass media was giving readers copious and trivial details about people who were often famous because they were famous. Andy Warhol had predicted 15 minutes of fame for everyone; the media was determined to make his prediction come true even if most of its current obsessions did not deserve more than 15 seconds. Global television gave a multiplier effect and local celebrities got international fame. Princess Diana is the best example of a media creation. So intimate did people even outside Britain feel with her that when she died and her funeral was brought to us, live, at home, we had a sense of personal loss. But her name seems to have been missed out as the person of the century _ have her beauty and her noble deeds been forgotten already?

Is it also possible that our notions of heroes and role models are changing? All the major political battles have already been fought and won. Liberal and free-market democracy has triumphed, we have been informed, and only the peripheral issues need sorting out. There are no empire builders anymore because empire building is politically incorrect; the empire breakers too did their bit in the post-colonial years. When there are no masses to lead, how can there be any mass leaders? And in these times of globalisation, what we need is global leadership; someone who affects the lives of billions.

So, are the true heroes of our times Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch? Certainly without the former we would find it difficult to take the computer revolution so much for granted today and without the latter we would not feel so entertained. Doesn't every child today want to get listed on NASDAQ by the time he or she is 20?

"Every generation throws a hero up the pop charts," sang Paul Simon. Yesterday's heroes may inspire a sense of awe and respect, but who would want to emulate Gandhi today? Yukta Mookhey is more relevant to our needs. Even Sushmita Sen is history, a discard who has not been able to sustain the initial appeal. Sachin Tendulkar is always there, but just about, because if he fails with the bat or as a leader, then some of our illusions will fail with him. The situation is no better internationally. Nelson Mandela's graciousness and saintliness has ensured his place in history, but his tenure as a leader and statesman was too short to be dispassionately analysed.

It is thus a supreme irony, that as we build up the hype and hoopla about voting for the man of the century we are bereft of anyone around us who we can look up to. The world is entering the new millennium and a new era without any heroes. INAV

Socio-economic goals for twenty-first century

By Prof. A. N. Sadhu

Within a day from now, the world will wake up to 'Good-morning 2000'. Historical occasions like this are used to review the past and make fresh resolves to march forward. Every nation would like to enter the next century with hope and promise. This calls for assessment of the previous record and need for setting up a new framework of pursuits, on all fronts.

A spate of discussions, seminars and symposia have been held since Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's time to explain the importance of the occasion as also the efforts that are required to be made to enter into the next century. Although, there is going to be no significant change in the things, we are faced with now, but there certainty will be new complexities, new opportunities and new methodologies to pursue the social goals of emancipation and excellence. Generating awareness to that effect is, therefore, timely and nations, more so, the developing ones have to make lots of preparations to wake up on that magic morning with full alterness and commitment to the new goals that need to be identified and set for achievement in a specified period of time.

The new goals will have to be set up keeping in view the changing socio-economic scenario in the country. The future goals will also have to be set keeping in view the past performance and the factors that might have contributed to it. India on the thresh-hold of 21st century is also poised for some outstanding changes in its basic politico-administrative structure. The democracy and secularism will remain but the conventional approaches are likely to give way to new ethos and expression to deepen the operationalization of these systems. There is greater realisation of transforming the existing administrative system to 'Development Administration' that will be more responsive, efficient, accountable and transparent. The levels of emancipation are rising and people are becoming more and more participative in the affairs of the country. The emerging scenario is going to be far too difficult than the one we witnessed immediately after independence.

It may be noted that our economic goals for the twenty-first century can't be cast in isolation of the goals that the country has pursued so far, nor can we ignore the new goals that will have to be pursued in the next century.

The economic goals that have to be pursued, as an ongoing process, relate to:-

a) eradication of poverty; b) removal of unemployment; c) reduction of inequality and (d) modernisation.

The fifty years that we have had so far to shape our destiny have proved too small a period to wipe out tears from the eyes of our millions of the countrymen and next few years of the 21st century are going to produce no miracles on this score. We will have to live with the problem of povety deep into the next century. Among the priority goals will, therefore, be the eradication of poverty within the first half of twenty-century.

The goal for twenty -first century will therefore not be mere removal of poverty but to assist these millions to emerge into a social order in which they will neither suffer from absolute poverty nor from relative poverty compared to the whole-some socio-economic scenario of the next century. The goal of povety-free economy will have to find an honest and, of course, assertive expression in the development programmes of the 21st century.

At the root of the poverty is the problem of unemployment which has become endemic in our economy. Besides historical factors, the gross mismanagement of our economy in the last fifty years has not only eluded its solution but has, in fact, aggravated the problems further. The goal of zero un-employment will remain high on economic agenda of the next century with all round efforts to achieve it within the next fifty years or even earlier.

The problem of un-employment has many variants in our economy and it just does not need a single programme alone to tackle it. We have unemployment in all sectors of the economy, occupationally as also geographically. We are at the thresh-hold of structural transformation which is likely to result into greater complexities on this front. The process of adjustments causes frictional un-employment which in the immediate future should aggravate the problem rather than bringing about any substantial relief in this regard. The process of economic reforms initiated in the early nineties will deepen into our economic system in the next few years and care will have to be taken so that the emerging economic structure opens out avenues of employment both for unskilled and skilled man-power.

The trickle-down mechanism which has been resorted to has failed to show results in the past. Since the new economic policy also relies on this mechanism heavily, care will have to be taken to smoothen the flow of gains to weaker sections, unskilled sections and backward areas so as to bring about allround involvement in the process of growth both in agricultue and industry. The problem of un-employment will have to be addressed thoughtfully so that liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation does not lead to lop-sided development resulting into the absorption of skilled and semi-skilled workers alone and leaving the rest of swell the pool of un-employment which the next century will not be able to afford. Thus the goal of zero-unemployment will, in no way be less important than the goal of poverty free-society.

Wide spread in-equality in income and wealth has been the major contributor to deprivation of a large section of our population. One of the noblest goals set forth in the very first plan document, (viz) the reduction of inequality, will have to be pursued with renewed vigour in the next century. Sooner this goal is achieved, more harmonions will be the economic transformation of our society. The islands of affluence in an oasis of misery will bathe eye-sores, (in otherwise a more emancipated society) which my lead to turbulence and social strife that a which may lead to turbulence and social strife that a fast changing society can only ill-afford. The goal of promotion of an equalitarian society, in which every citizen of the country, irrespective of his caste, creed, religion and region will have equal access to the opportunities that the next century will throw up at its beginning itself, will have to be pursued very vigorously. Persistence of the income and wealth extremes has the portent to revolt and which, if it occurs, will distort the onward march to higher levels of achievement. It will be very difficult for 21st century India to reconcile with the socio-economic situation in which there will be idle or under-utilized property estates on the one hand and millions of people sleeping on the foot-paths on the other or there will be unmanagable surpluses on the one hand and starvation on the other, or there will be protected access to opportunities for the mediocrity and restrictions for the meritorious. The constitutional guarantees of equality will not only have to be ensured but also redefined in order to keep pace with the world society, seeking higher levels of excellence.

As far as the goal of modernisation, the achievements of the last fifty years have not been mean. We have successfully, even though only moderately, modernised our agriculture, industry, infrastructure and research and development. Suffering from a wide gap with the industrialised countries, we have substantially bridged it, over the last five decades. The advanced countries of the world, during the same period, have, however, taken new strides forward and achieved new heights in their modernisation programmes. India will have to catch up fast with rest of the world in this regard. The country is still heavily dependent upon the imports of sophisticated machinery, advanced technology and innovative marketing and management expertise. We are among the leading countries of the world with skilled man-power and a large industrial base and it should be our endeavour to use foreign investments to boost modernisation inorder to augment the country's exports and increase its participation in the global trade.

Modernisation of materials alone will not help, modernisation of minds is equally important. 21st century will call for huge investments in, teaching and research, professional development and skill formation besides cultivating a scientific temper among the masses. While protecting our rich cultural heritage, Indians will have to look forward with a scientific bent to mind to achieve higher levels of excellence in all fields. Modernisation with lasting effect will have to be focussed upon at the down of the next decade and modernisation of house-hold gadgets and consumer durables along will not be enough.

Agricultural modernisation has remained lop-sided and oil-seeds and pulses have yet to witness a break-through and so also is the position of dry and hill farming areas. Similarly industrial and infrastructural medernisation is in-adequate and considerable attention is called for in the next century to bring about the realisation of the goal of complete modernisation of Indian economy.

Besides the goals that we have to persist with the new goals mentioned hereunder have to be set and sought to be achieved at the earliest. These goals are:-

a/ Regulation of Demographic Behaviour.

b/ Evolving a conformable administrative system.

c/ Self-sufficiency in energy requirements.

d/ Sustaining the desired environmental levels.

e/ Value based socio-economic order.

Among the new goals for 21st century, the goal of stable population will be on top of the economic agenda. We are soon going to cross the proverbial limit of one billion and going by the trends, the century will have more than 1500 million people by 2047. The experts are sceptical about the realisation of population stability even in the next hundred years. This is going to be the biggest challenge that the country will be faced with right at the entry into the next century. Between 1947 and 2047, the country's population would have risen by more than 400 percent which certainly would demand substantial investments in the sectors of food-supply, health, housing, education and other social infrastructure. However, beyond a certain point of time no amount of increase in these investments will be sufficient to cope up with the demands, if demographic stability is not achieved. Even when one would not like to cast this problem in Malthusian Passimism, the fact remains that there is a limit to resources at the disposal of the mankind suggesting thereby that demands ultimately will need to be adjusted against the availabilities. Not only is it the absolute number that causes alarm, the qualitative dimension is more disturbing. With the world community, more particularly the developed nations puttings added emphasis on quality of life, we cannot afford to go casually or slowly with this dimension of the problem. 21st century will see the developing countries concentrating on quality aspects to avoid social unrest which, in an intimately linked world, can erupt any time out of a feeling of relative deprivation of the comforts of life.

India will need 400 millions tonnes of food grains in 2047 which amounts to little more than double of the present level of production. With cultivable area remaining, more or less, the same, the thrust will be on productivity alone with has its own limits and does not increase without hiccups. In fact inorganic framing is posing quite a few problems of serious nature which might threaten the productivity growth rates in future. This will handicap the achievement of quality improvement in the developing nations. Thus the goal of population stability should engage sufficient attention of planners in the next century. That the theory of demographic transition will bring about the required stability in right time seems a remote possibility as the second stage of this transition is likely to be a prolonged affair in the case of developing nations.

The goal of evolving an administrative model capable of addressing itself to the basic problems of an economy in transition, will have to be pursued vigorously. A developing economy needs corruption-free administration with social commitment. The first fifty years of our independence witnessed the emergence of a high degree of corruption in our administration and situation worsened further because of in-efficiency, incompetence and indifferent approach bereft of the required sense of social responsibility among our administrators. The hang over of the colonial model of administration persisted all through and the development orientation in post-independent period did really not develop, the way it should have. Twenty-first century will have to focus on responsive administration and make its working transparent for regular social monitoring by the people for whom it will be working. Achieving the goal of setting up result-oriented administration in initial years of the next century should remain on top of the priority list. Formalism will have to go and its place taken by physical achievements.

Equally important is going to be the goal of achieving self-sufficiency in energy requirements. It was in eighties itself that researchers had anticipated the crisis of three P's (Population Power and Pollution) for the developing countries, in general, and India, in particular. The country is still heavily dependent upon the oil imports which exert a serious drain on our foreign exchange reserves thus diverting its use from more important sectors. The energy development is core to industrialisation as also to other sectors where wheels of progress move with the use of energy alone. Huge investments are called for both the conventional as well as non-conventional sectors of energy and self sufficiency in this sector will have to be achieved fast to avoid slowing down of the pace of progress.

The twenty-first century will be greatly involved in conservation and preservation of environment. India's environment was greatly damaged by the planned drain of its natural wealth before 1947 and it suffered equally badly since then owing to unscrupulous exploitation by the natives. Our forest cover and green patches shrunk during the last fiftyyears resulting in the reduction of water flow and other problems associated with it. Environmental degradation can deepen further owing to population explosion and only scientific planning can help to bring about the required balance between people and nature. Depletion of environmental and ecological endowment will also seriously handicap the economic development which the country can't afford. 'Forest preceded mankind and the deserts will succeed it' is the saying of Rigveda and if the country where Rigveda was written does not take serious note of the saying, it will be highly unfortunate. We have dug deeper holes in our nature during the 20th century and let us resolved to fill them up during the 21st to ensure the survival of our progeny. 20th century lived in its today and let the 21st live for its tomorrow.

Last but not the least important will be the goal of establishing a value-based society. In the name of transition, we have eroded the time-tested old values and virtues inherrent from the great men and saints of the past but have utterly failed to create new ones. Dishonesty, corruption, incompetence and indiscipline have damaged our economy, polity and society to a considerable extent. It is required that the remaining years of the 20th century are devoted to a cleansing process so that we enter the next century with a society infused with discipline. The 21st century will have to make concerted efforts to build a strong nation with an emancipated and committed society. Indian economy is poised for a great break-through and let the 21st century be an era of achievements and not of failures.
 
 



| home | state | national | business | editorial | advertisement | sports |
| international | weather | mailbag | suggestions | search |
subscribe | send mail |