. |
. |
EDITORIAL Attack by regular Pak Army soldiers in Uri sector of Kashmir leaves no doubt about the malafide intentions of the military rulers of Pakistan. On the one hand self-appointed Chief Executive ...more It is quite unacceptable in any democratic set up to harass the people for facilitating smooth movement of ministers. Prime Minister had ordered that VIP movements should in no was cause inconvenience. .more |
|
Our History, their history Salute to stinking Multinationals in |
 |
||
EDITORIAL Attack by regular Pak Army soldiers in Uri sector of Kashmir leaves no doubt about the malafide intentions of the military rulers of Pakistan. On the one hand self-appointed Chief Executive of Pakistan Gen Musharaff has repeatedly asked for resumption of dialogue and even visit by him to Delhi. On the other hand he continues provocative acts as manifested by latest attack. He is also the person who masterminded Kargil intrusions by Pak army in the guise of Mujahideens. He happens to the one who has promised open and unflinching support to the Mujahideens until they achieve their goal. It may not be out of place to mention that he was one of the most trusted officer of Gen Zia-ul-Huq who conceived proxy war in J&K instead of regular war in which General Musharaff (then Brigadier) actively contributed. With these credentials it is obvious that none can trust him in India. To be precise he was the favourite confidant of Nawaz Sharif who after removing General Karamat as Chief of Army Staff appointed him as such superceding at least two other senior Generals. Yet he happens to be the one eho overthrew his mentor within less than year of taking over Army Command. American inner circles and intelligence briefs have sketched him as hardcore which is closer to fundamentalism than a moderate. The appointees in the National Security Council happen to be all persons with fundamentalist leanings. During the recent 3 day annual conclave of Lashkar-e-Toiyaba near Lahore, General Musharaff has done nothing to stop them from using choicest invectives and threats to not only J&K but also India as a whole. LeT incidentally is the product of ISI of Pakistan which in turn is under the control of Pak Army. Of particular relevance is his dual talk of withdrawing Army from International border in Jammu to derive publicity mileage at international forums as the one who is for peace with India. But his nasty game becomes quite clear when he refuses to order similar withdrawal from the Line of Control. This is despite the fact that all major powers have asked Pakistan to disengage its forces on the LoC as well like it has done on the IB. Big powers have also asked Pak rulers to stop madrassas that have become breeding grounds for world class terrorists as also cease forthwith sponsorship of terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir. These pre-requisites are repeated almost every day. The response of Pakistan manifests it adamant and belligerent attitude when it dares attack Indian post first in Siachin area and now in Uri sector. This explains why General has refused to withdraw its forces from LoC because it cannot sustain proxy war without the Pak army being present on LoC to facilitate infiltration under cover of intensive fire. It has been the wont of successive rulers of Pakistan to whip up mass hysteria over Kashmir whenever it faced domestic troubles. It is in this context that American President Bill Clinton has asked Pakistan to stop using Kashmir card as an excuse for building up recurring tensions in the sub-continent. Clinton goes unto tell Pakistan that Kashmir is no more salable issue and that it is better for peace that Pakistan considers it as only one of the contentious issues and not link it as pre-requisite to solving other contentious issues. This is essential to facilitate dialogue which is in the interest of both the countries for progress and prosperity. War mongering game has not fetched any dividend to Pakistan during the last more than five decades. It has done it plenty of harm and caused acute humiliation to not only Pak armed forces but also every Pakistani when it had to retreat from Kargil unceremoniously under military pressure of mighty Indian forces and hostile world opinion that went against Pakistan as never before. From the above it follows that Pak rulers be they democratically elected or the military dictators have invariably violated all international and bilateral agreements and continue to display bellicosity in its worst form. They violated UN Resolutions of 1948-49 whose first condition of Pak forces withdrawal was never met by Pakistan. They again violated Karachi agreement which gave birth to ceasefire line which got converted into Line of Control in 1972. This Shimla accord was again given the short shrift even though it was ratified by Pak National Assembly. It definitely entailed disengagement and total sanctity of LoC which has been violated thousands of times by Pakistan. The latest violation is of Lahore Declaration. Pak rulers are thus dishonest and indulge in self-deceit if they now expect India to respond to their vague overtures. To prove its honesty and sincerity to live as a peaceful neighbour, Pakistan must stop attacking or firing along LoC, cease export of terrorists and stop all material support to ultras, local or foreigners, operating in J&K. Pakistan should also see the writing on the walls that it is in no-win position; it never was all these 52 years; it shall never be so in the next millenium. 10 Pak soldiers are killed in Uri. The same fate awaits others who dare attack our posts. What it could not achieve in last five decades it shall never be able to do it even in 1000 years of ZA Bhutto' day-dreaming. The password for the Indian politician is to be cautious while for the armed forces there is simply no room for any let-up or complacency anywhere on Indo-Pak border, IB and LoC included, although logically there is no chance of any attack from Pakistan now or in the near future. It is quite unacceptable in any democratic set up to harass the people for facilitating smooth movement of ministers. Prime Minister had ordered that VIP movements should in no was cause inconvenience to the people. Even ruling from the highest court supports unhindered movement of people even when VIPs have to pass through such and such route. It seems many ministers in Vajpayee government are either unaware or derive sadistic pleasure as indicated by holding up Puja Express to provide passage to Jammu Mail in which two central ministers were supposedly going for darshan of Mata Vaishno Devi. Same happens to be true of large number of commuters travelling in Puja Express. It was Puja that should have reached Jammu first because it left Delhi much earlier. The sign board put at the railway station mentioned only a delay of half an hour late i.e. ETA as 9-30 AM instead of scheduled 9-00 AM. But just a few minutes before 9-30 comes the alarming change - Puja is late by 2 hour ten minutes i.e. ETA 11-10 even as Jammu Mail had steamed in. Actually Puja reached at 11-55, around three hours late. And all this because two ministers were on board Jammu Mail. The overzealous functionaries at some point must have decided to prove to the on-board ministers how punctual is the railway system. It hardly matters if it resulted in large scale heart-burns amongst the passengers, most of them pilgrims to the same holy shrine. This speaks volumes about the total degeneration in our system where bigots and zealots continue to call the shots. To be fair to all, a thorough probe is called for asto who decided to delay Puja when it was running almost on-time. |
||
|
||
Our
History, their history Nationalist historians often hail "a golden past". Communal historiography often views an age through a king's character. Medieval history is full of stereotypes as the "liberal and secular" Akbar, the "fanatical" Aurangzeb. Recently a consultation on history teaching was organised by NGO KHOJ in Mumbai. The conference was attended by historians from various countries in South-East Asia. At the conference it was concluded that modern historiography is closely linked with nation-states. There is a need for a study of other spatial units to tackle the stereotypes which sustain ethnic animosities. Communal ideologies are based upon the distortion of the history of 'their' community. There are links between nationalist and communal ideologies, especially when nationalism is tied to ethnicity. Dr. Mubarak Ali from Pakistan referred to fundamentalism's effects on historical scholarship in his country. After 1965, ancient history stopped being taught in Pakistan, barring a mention of the Indus Valley Civilisation. The official line is that anything out of the syllabi "is not part of our history". Official historiography is committed to the two-nation theory. Questioning it can lead to imprisonment for ten years under the Pakistan Ideology Act of 1991, which also prevents critical evaluation of responsible for Pakistan's creation. There is no space to write non-official history. Professor Romila Thapar, renowned scholar of ancient Indian history, cautioned that the situation in Pakistan could be a precursor to the discipline's fate in India. Theories of origin are linked to the rise of chauvinism. Professor Thapar noted that certain interpretations of history have encouraged a "ghetto" nationalism. The Aryan theory of race was untenable as it equates language with race. Jyotiba Phule argued that the Aryan invasions led to the subjugation of indigenous peoples, relegating them to the status of shudras. But Hindutva history holds there was no invasion, and the Aryans are indigenous to India. Hindu Aryas are the inheritors of the land. There is no historical support for either interpretation. The conference also discussed the concept of history as memory as a clue to understanding mass mobilisation. Professor Thapar described her research on the Somnath temple, which demonstrated the fabricated nature of popular myths about its destruction by Mahmud of Ghazni. Purushottam Agrawal of JNU cited the Padmini myth, preserved by a whole community, despite no historical evidence. Kabir is elevated to symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity in reality he was a critic of both religious traditions. Dr. Mubarak Ali said school textbooks in Pakistan from Class VI upwards differentiate between Hindus and Muslims. However, hope for an alternative perspective was present where medieval history was not reduced simply to 'Muslim rule'. Recently Pakistani editions of Gandhi, Nehru and Rajendra Prasad's books are being reprinted, which demonstrates the thirst for other perspectives on history. History is a journey into the past for a nation's identity. Religion has been appropriated as the main form of identity. Efforts need to be made to develop an appreciation of overlapping identities, such as identity in the child's mind, identity in wider society, with admixture of language, religion, caste, region or profession. Knowledge of plural identities will make people less accepting of distortions. A positive history is needed to replace current teaching on the issue of contested identities in South Asia. Linguistic pluralism could help move towards a pluralistic society. One speaker cited that Sri Lankan historian. Colin De Silva's, comment (in 1950) on the rising Tamil versus Sinhalese issue, "if you speak one language, you will have two states but if you speak two languages you will have state", proved prophetic. Urdu is resented as the national language of Pakistan by Siraikis and Sindhis. In India, the teaching of Urdu was not encouraged because it was supposedly a Muslim language. And now Urdu is being written in Devnagiri. The conference also brought together teachers from mainly Mumbai schools interested in alternate ways of teaching. In the existing syllabus, history has to be presented as a series of facts, which makes it difficult to teach. Speakers felt it was possible to improvise. In class V, children study the history of Mumbai. As part of an exercise, they were asked to find the history of their family's shift to the city. A number of interesting accounts have emerged from such exercises. Textbook writing in India has not adequately reflected progress in the discipline. Urvashi Butalia, publisher, said civil society should play an active role in textbook writing. Eighty per cent of publishing has been taken over by the state, through Commissions for Research and Training. A novel way of presenting history could be as an osmosis of cultures, for instance through a study of comparative religions. We could also trace the history of the production of global commodities _ studying the links of capitalism with identity could help re-write the history of the nation-state. One of the most important history lessons for both Indian and Pakistani students is the story of Partition. Was Partition the logical culmination of how history was viewed in colonial times, and how was it interpreted in the next phase of Indian historiography? Examiners often pose questions such as, "Was Partition inevitable?" and "Who was responsible?" this has led to the demonisation of a community or individuals. Mubarak Ali pointed out that Partition was tinged with a sense of loss in India but in Pakistan, it was viewed as an achievement. Recent literature showing the "human cost" of partition was encouraging, but it was not being replicated in Pakistan. Partitions have divided the Muslims among three countries. There has been some re-thinking in Pakistan on whether it solved or created problems. The sense of loss in India became the strongest symbol for Hindu communal organisations. Can a new historiographical approach help combat communal prejudices? For a better understanding of secularism, it would help to have compilations from the Constituent Assembly debates between 1947-50. Butalia described sources of information on partition. The situation of Muslims who stayed behind in India and Hindus in Pakistan needs to be examined as there is a closure in access to the other side. Linked to this is the impact on other identities. Even prisoners, mental patients and eunuchs were divided. What happened to the Dalits in Pakistan? In Sind, the Essential Services Maintenance Act was invoked to restrict Harijans from leaving the area, as the sanitary services were in a state of collapse. Partition was an administrative nightmare, leading to a situation where officials from Pakistan had to hand copy of certain files kept in India. Another area worth exploring is the changes within cities. There could be a collaborative effort to collect oral accounts. Four kinds of follow-up work were suggested. KHOJ could organise other workshops across South Asia for teachers on how Partition can be taught. These could be held in vernacular languages. A working group is to be formed to widen the scope of South Asian history. Its members are: Leslie Gunawardana (Sri Lanka), Mubarak Ali (Pakistan), Romila Thaper, K. N. Pannikar, Urvashi Butalia, Uma Chakravorty, Indrani Chatterji, Sajal, Nag, Purushottam Agrawal, Dilip Simeon, Teesta Setalvad (India, others interested can write in). Its objectives are to examine history and social studies textbooks in countries like India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka; and explore alternate histories which may be taught outside the paradigms of nation-states. The workshop also mentioned the example of Kerala. This does away with the chronological classification and uses categories of culture, political structures and socio-economic periodisation. Finally, KHOJ will act as a resource base for history teachers, attempting to supply material being researched by historians to enable their use in classrooms. This could take the form of extra reading; and could also be used to counter distorted histories propagated by fundamentalist organisations. INAV |
||
|
|
Multinationals in India -
Boon or Bane ? India has surely come a long way since independence and is now quite receptive to inflow of foreign investment and entry of multinational corporations (MNCs). The lead role of the State in the economy has outlived its utility after having brought in a chain of public sector units, few efficient and profitable but most of them inefficient and loss-making. Further,the collapse of the Soviet Union and huge inflow of MNC investment in China are clear signals that private sector has a key role to play in any economy. Moreover, capital required for stepping up agricultural and industrial production and employment generation in India has to come in a large measure from the private sector, both the domestic and foreign, as the government already is highly indebted. Ever since the economic reforms process got underway in 1991, there has been a lot of discussion on whether multinationals from other countries should be allowed to gain entry into the Indian market through any activity - be it manufacturing, service or sale. There have been arguments both in favour of and against this. Yet, the last word has not been said on the subject so far, especially by the government. Perhaps, the new government at the Centre may like to spell out its policy on the subject. No doubt, already there is a lurking skepticism on whether MNCs are going to be a boon or a bane for Indian economy once they provide stiff competition to Indian companies. The time has now come when the issue should be seriously dealt with and consensus reached on the subject. No longer should there be any disagreement and uncertainty in any section of the Indian industry or economy. In fact, the criticism of MNC also emerges from mental blocks formed by Indian companies as a result of 50 years of closed economy. While Indian companies are aspiring to be global players, they cannot afford to lobby for keeping foreign companies out of the domestic market. Several Indian companies have entered into collaboration with MNCs only to use the brand name of foreign partners to market products in the domestic market. No wonder, MNCs, like any Indian company, are here to make money. Further, they go into industries which are eligible for automatic clearance. When they want to hold more than 51 per cent equity they need to get clearance from Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB). If clearance comes then it is no fault of MNCs but of FIPB. It is for the government to use MNCs' money power the way it likes with clear guidelines in place. Having said that, time has now come when Indian should make it clear that through suitable incentive schemes, it wants high technology and larger investment in infrastructure and manufacturing from global giants. Also, India should no longer be interested in short-gestation businesses in junk food, beverages, clothing, footwear and so on. If MNCs show themselves as more demanding and exploitative then they are in the Asian tiger countries like South Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia, that is partly because the government's description of the abysmal nature of the Indian economy some years ago gave them a head start as a ‘saviour in a salvaging operation’ in tandem with the policy of liberalisation. The whole issue, therefore, raises a wider set of questions. The early years of liberalisation say frequent debates in which nearly all sections of the industry supported the opening up of the economy to foreign investment, but sought protection for itself. Moreover, the question is not that those in favour of greater ‘swadeshi’ policy-framework were in effect demanding a situation of near autarky where trade relations, being insignificant, hardly matter for the economy. But the mindset nurtured by decades of functioning in a sheltered economy has to be changed. We have to come to terms with the fact that global integration with free market economies will necessarily make India more dependent on international trade relations. It is also felt that to make the role of MNCs more effective and vital to the Indian situation, it is necessary to attract investment in sectors where their expertise, management techniques and finance give a critical push to the Indian economy. At a time, when India requires a commitment of 30 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for investment purposes and the savings rate is at a plateau, there is an utter urgency to bring in the foreign capital. India can effectively absorb foreign investment worth 30 billion U.S. dollars every year, particularly in the power, express-ways, telecommunications and food-processing sectors where MNCs can play a dominant role. The export sector in India provides ample opportunity for MNCs to play a lead role as in the East Asian economies. MNCs have to be encouraged to invest in this sector in large numbers. There is a dire need to step up export realisation in view of the increasing debt servicing obligations and import requirements. MNCs have the financial base to bring into the country adequate investments, technology and working capital to produce for the international market. The new economic policy of 1991 has been favourable for MNCs and they have been allowed to use their brand names in the domestic markets. No doubt, Indian requires foreign direct investment in crucial sectors of the economy to improve its competitive strength in the international market. However, it should not become a victim of the machinations of MNCs. Our approach to MNCs must, therefore, be a cautions one. True, MNCs have been functioning in India for a long time but then, we must be wary of their shenanigans. This is so because they want to see that the world depends on them and their products. They do not mind if their activities feeble the environment in the host countries. The early years of liberalisation saw frequent debates in which the major issue against them was their entry would lead to huge flight of capital over the years depleting our investment sources. There is an element of truth in this but the government has been just helpless as the MNCs could legitimately do this. Also, we should not wish away the fact that the operations of MNCs may result in ultimately transfer of inappropriate technologies which may even lead to regional economic imbalances. Other harmful effects include over-exploitation of scarce hard currencies in the form of dividends, royalties, patent fees and profits, excessive local borrowings, long-run technological dependency on the parent countries and extorbitant transfer prices for exports or imports and technological packages. It must also be recognised that investment in a project is spread over a period of time. A project which is relatively more technology-intensive and requires a much higher capital outlay, takes much longer to be implemented. The total investments earmarked for a project covers the real estate and establishment costs, the expenditure envisaged for capital equipment and machinery and manpower cost. Obviously, the entire investment is not going to flow as liquid cash into the Indian economy. The cost that will be incurred on land, buildings and other civil construction will come directly into our system. However, very few new MNC projects, if any, can afford to rely on Indian capital equipment and machinery, given our current levels of technology, product quality and reliability, as also after-sales service and cost competitiveness. As such, our domestic industry for capital equipment is not going to be encouraged with the entry of new MNCs as only foreign producers who will benefit. What is more MNCs have no obligation to any nation state. Their sole interest is capital gains. They can use their enormous resources even for political instability and overthrowing democratically-elected governments. Through their aggressive advertising, they encourage conspicuous consumption and wasteful expenditure. Obviously, the production patterns of developing countries become preposterous much to the disadvantage of their poor sections of society. There is, therefore, need to make foreign investment policy and approval for MNC projects transparent to avoid disputes like Enron's Dhabol project, which though again put back on rails, has affected India's image as an attractive foreign investment destination. Already, the overall assessment of foreign investors is that their companies should hold back their investment plans till the new government at the centre gives priority to entry of MNCs in consumer goods sector. There is so much talk of
accountability and regulatory mechanism being thrust on
MNCs. But, in practice they cannot be subjected to any
local accountability. MNCs are unified, well-coordinated
entities and their operations are conducted through
centrally-located coordinations. In such a situation to
make them veer round the concept of local sensibilities,
seems very difficult. However, local regulatory system
can be geared to utmost level of efficiency if the
government has concern for the people at large. |
|
|
|
