Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

By Samuel Baid

Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam has put to nought General Pervez Musharraf’s historic statement in which he had said he would give up his country’s claim on Kashmir if India and Pakistan worked out a solution for Kashmir based on self-governance. On December 5 when he made this statement in an interview to an Indian TV, Ms.Aslam found nothing wrong in it. . ...more

Perils of the market

Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

The status of women

By Indu Swami

EDITORIAL

Toshakhana on fire

Indeed, it is baffling that a fire should have taken place inside the Mubarak Mandi complex of palaces at a time when efforts are being made to preserve it as an extremely rare historic and archaeological piece of heritage. There is one lesson that needs to be immediately learnt. Stricter surveillance is necessary than is being maintained these days. At least all that remains of residences and offices of the erstwhile ruling Dogra dynasty must be safe. There have been mysterious fires in the past as well. One can see their tell-tale signs. The latest blaze has affected Toshakhana which was the treasury of former rulers. The extent of the damage is not immediately known. But it has been made known that the record of the Hospitality and Protocol Department has been reduced to ashes. The inferno on Friday had triggered an afternoon drama. There was understandable panic on the part of those in its vicinity and expected bravery by the men in charge of dousing it. According to a report in this newspaper the concerned administrative machinery unlocked the closed rooms of Toshakhana after the fire and after satisfying itself that everything was in tact it has locked them again. This does raise a bit of suspense over their contents. It will be perfectly in order to lift the veil of secrecy over things that are inside. At one point in time Toshakhana had included the royalty's jewellery, heirlooms, wearing apparel, gold and silver utensils and cutlery, furniture, fixtures and carpets. These were transferred to the Government treasury in Srinagar on September 17, 1951. Contemporary accounts estimated their worth over Rs 100 crores. Former Sadar-e-Riyasat Karan Singh --- he was recognised as Maharaja by the Union Government on July 8, 1961 --- had staked his claim to these items in a letter to the Union Home Ministry in 1983. He had later approached the State High Court as well for a direction to the Central Government for handing over to him what he said was his private property. The Union Government rejected his contention in 1984. It cited a letter of Maharaja Hari Singh to late Union Home Minister Vallabhbhai Patel listing his belongings without mentioning the jewellery or regalia that Dr Singh had claimed The High Court also turned down his plea and upheld the Government's take-over of jewellery and other articles. It had come to the conclusion that looking into the nature and circumstances and the conduct of the appellant, it was evident that till 1983 no attempt whatsoever was made either by the ex-ruler or by Dr. Singh to claim these jewels as private property.

Eventually Dr Singh approached the highest court in the land. In its ruling in 2004, however, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court order. A Division Bench of the apex court noted that Dr Singh "has not put forward any claim much less such claim having been recognised by the Union of India for 30 years and all those years the appellant did not raise his little finger in respect of these movables." It pointed out that the Union Government had accepted the private property list given by Maharaja Hari Singh, which was stated even by Dr Singh in his autobiography titled "Heir Apparent." It felt that Dr. Singh had abandoned or waived his right in respect of the objects and said: "It is evident that the appellant came out of slumber only in the year 1983 and took chance in respect of the articles in question." The fire now has served to ignite earlier memories --- bitter and sweet. Although much is known about the past it is at times like future --- shrouded in mystique. It also has myths surrounding it all the more so when it concerns kings and queens. It is not surprising, therefore, that the people living around Mubarak Mandi for generations have tales passed on to them about treasures, phantoms and elephants (replaced by trucks in post-1947 versions).

In less than two years it is the second time that Toshakhana is in the news. Earlier following the earthquake in October 2005 the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) had carried out a study of the impact of natural disaster on Toshakhana. It has recorded that "the building has suffered minor damages after the earthquake. There are minor collapses at the roof level where a portion of the chajja has collapsed. Vertical cracks have appeared at several places inside the building and there are damages to wall paintings and papier machie ceiling." Its recommendations that have continued to gather dust are: "structural retrofitting of the entire building is required. Damaged parapet to be repaired using historic building material and original designs. Restoration of wall paintings, papier machie ceiling and mirror panels is required. Building should be put to an effective reuse to ensure its maintenance." The report has described "exquisite wall paintings and papier machie ceilings" and "one of the chambers having elaborate mirror work on its wall panels" as the two most significant features of Toshakhana. Has either of them survived the flames? What is left behind now?

Fund for Dal

By all means the Dal Lake, the first decent introduction of a tourist to the Capital city of Srinagar, should not only be saved but also given a face-lift. The glistening water body is our proud possession. Certain directives issued by the State High Court to eliminate official lethargy and enlist the public cooperation have already yielded positive impact. There can't be two opinions about this. Its latest ruling to set up a "Dal conservation fund" is one more such step. It has appealed to the people to make contributions in it. Monetary inflow is necessary in these operations. Ultimately, however, it is up to the men in charge to strike a balance between the available means --- financial or otherwise --- and intended goals. They must rise to the occasion and take pride in rescuing the nature's unbounded bounty in our State. It can't be a cause of comfort, for instance, that some reputed hotels and institutions continue to evade requisite standards while running their sewerage treatment plans around the Dal. The High Court has done well to ask the Pollution Control Board to monitor their systems at regular intervals and submit a fresh report. It has also directed the concerned managements to be present in person on the next date of hearing.

All of us should realise that helping the nature is to our collective advantage. We must spare no efforts in this behalf.

Storm in the tea cup

By Samuel Baid

But seven days later (December 11) she said Pakistan had never claimed Kashmir to be its integral part. That made General Musharraf’s willingness to give up claim on Kashmir totally meaningless. Faced with a volley of questions from media persons about General Musharraf’s TV statement, she repeatedly referred to the country’s constitution in a nervous manner to emphasise that Pakistan never made claims to Kashmir.

The introduction to the 1973 constitution defines Pakistan’s territories. They do not include Kashmir but the introduction says they "shall comprise such states and territories as are or may be included in Pakistan whether by accession or otherwise."

The meaning of this part of the introduction is made clear by Article 257. The heading of this Article is: "Provision relating to the State of Jammu and Kashmir." The Article provides: "When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan the relationship between Pakistan and the State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State."

But the 1973 Constitution shows only one side of Pak Kashmir policy. The main authors of this Constitution were then President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his Cabinet colleagues including Mr.Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and Mr.Mehmud Ali Kasuri – all three legal luminaries.

The other side of Pakistan’s Kashmir policy is shown in the 1974 Constitution which Mr.Bhutto designed for occupied Kashmir and forced down its throat. In Pakistan’s own Constitution of 1973 Kashmir is not its territory. But in the 1974 Constitution for PoK, also designed by Mr.Bhutto, PoK is shown as a virtual colony of Pakistan.

The 1974 Constitution gives Pakistan control over all aspects of life in occupied Kashmir or "Azad" Kashmir as Pakistan calls it. This Constitution vaguely defines its territory as: "Azad Jammu and Kashmir means the territories of the State of Jammu and Kashmir which have been liberated by the people of that State and are for the time being under the administration of Government and such other territories as may hereafter come under its administration."

The Constitution makes it compulsory for PoK President, Prime Minister, Ministers and Assembly members to take the oath of loyalty to "the cause of accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan."

Section 7 of the 1974 Constitution says: "No person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to, the ideology of the State’s accession to Pakistan."

Section 9 says PoK newspapers should not write anything which would spoil "friendly relations with Pakistan." Section 19 tells the PoK Government "not to impede or prejudice the responsibilities of the Government of Pakistan." Even the State Assembly cannot make laws concerning Pakistan’s responsibilities" in PoK. A PoK Government that tries to challenge Pakistan’s interests (in PoK) is punished with Section 56 of this Constitution. This Section empowers Islamabad to sack such a Government even if it enjoys full support of the Assembly and the people.

The northern part of PoK is called Northern Areas while for the locals it is Gilgit-Baltistan or Balwaristan. Here more than 20 lakh inhabitants have rived without any rights and national identity. Pakistan rules this area as its serfdom. But this region, too, does not figure in Pakistan’s Constitution as among its territories. Pakistan has no legal title to this region yet it rules it without any responsibility towards its population.

Thus Ms.Tasnim Aslam’s repeated assertions on December 11 that Pakistan has never claimed Kashmir and the 1973 Constitution is clear on Pakistan’s Kashmir policy may be taken as correct if one does not read this Constitution along with Islamabad’s given 1974 Constitution of "Azad" Kashmir.

Obviously General Musharraf did not want to pretend that the world is unaware of Pakistan’s real intentions in Kashmir when he declared he was willing to give up Pakistan’s claim on Kashmir. But he made this declaration without any groundwork and consultations with his Army and Government colleagues. Former Army Chief Aslam Beg told BBC the Army was not taken into confidence. It was said to be General Musharraf’s proposal in his personal capacity and thus Pakistan could not be bound by it.

(The writer is Director, Institute for Media Studies & Information)

Perils of the market

Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

The common man's living conditions have seen unprecedented improvement in the last 200 years. He now uses plastic chappals in his feet, sleeps under tin sheets and listens to the radio. The credit for this improvement goes in substantial measure to economist Adam Smith. He had propounded the principle of 'Laissez faire' or 'hands off' in the eighteenth century. He said that the Government should not interfere in the working of market in matters such as price fixation, licensing and public enterprises. The market leads to the welfare of people as if governed by an invisible hand. The market ensures that every individual spontaneously undertakes the work at which he is best. Not so in controlled economies. In Soviet Russia, for example, work was allotted to individuals by Government officials. A person who best ability is to can drive a truck may be given work of gardening. That leads to inefficient use of manpower and high cost of production. Market also makes people happy. A person who likes to drive trucks can take up employment in a transport company. Every person can do the job that he likes and become happy just as a painter becomes happy if given the work of painting a mural. In this way the market leads to low-cost production as well as provides happiness to people.

It is seen, however, that such a happy circumstance does not prevail in the society. Smith thought that people will do work of their liking and be happy. But people are ever buzzing like the bee. They have no rest or peace. Psychosomatic disease such as blood pressure and asthma are increasing. Domestic violence and divorces are on the rise. The society is becoming unstable. Smith thought that people will get equal opportunities in the market and this will lead to equality. The son of a landlord and of a landless labourer will compete for admission in a university without historical baggage. All individuals will be free and the best will win. Inequality, therefore, will be reduced. It is seen, however, that inequality is rising. A graduate from IIM gets a salary of Rs 25,000 per day while the poor rickshaw puller makes Rs 100 with much difficulty. The question before us is this: The market was supposed to establish equality and happiness. Why is it leading to the opposite result?

We need to revisit Adam Smith to unravel this mystery. Joseph Schumpeter's famous book 'History of Economic Analysis' is of help to us. The common belief is, says Schumpeter, that Adam Smith advocated reducing the role of Government to zero or nearly so. But actually it is not so. Smith only said this much: The Government should impose minimal restrictions on the individual and let them compete in the market. But he also said the market should be actively regulated by the government or freedom of the individual should be restricted by the requirements of justice. For example an applicant for a job or for admission into a University should not be allowed to kill his competitor. Likewise he had emphasized that competition in the market should be 'free'. The rich and poor, or a Dalit and upper caste person should compete as equals in the market. The rich lad, for example, should not be permitted to bribe his way into the University. The market is not the final arbiter of social good. It leads to social good only if regulated properly.

The 'hands off' policy advocated by Smith did not mean absence of Government. Rather the government had an important role in making the market work properly. Freedom of the individual was restricted by justice and the Government must determine what justice is. The Government also had to ensure that there was no use of muscle power in the market. Contractors often prevent new businessmen from reaching the office and take contracts at exorbitant rates. This is not proper functioning of the market. Smith did not say that the society should be left wholly in the hands of the market. Rather he said that the Government must actively ensure that market works in the interests of society. Mainstream economists have accepted Smith's suggestion of minimal interference but ignored his advice that the government must actively oversee the working of the market. Modern economists hold that the 'market knows best'. They believe that the market will correctly determine what is good for the people. Consumers will correctly determine whether they want to drink bottled soft drinks or fresh fruit juice and the market will supply their needs. It was forgotten that the consumer is gullible and can be persuaded to demand and take unhealthy drinks and act contrary to his own interests.

Kauitlya says in Arthasastra that the Government must regulate the markets. The same idea is found in the Islamic tradition. Dr Javed Jamil writes in his recently published book 'Islam means Peace': "Businessmen of the past had little influence over the happenings in their surroundings. They were cranes that would use their cunning eyes to capture the prey when it cam close to them and not leopards that would storm their way through the forest." In the modern times, says Jamil, the business class sets the policies of the Government with the result that 'justice' has become the servant of profit. The Government does not determine whether drinking of bottled soft drinks is good for the society; rather the business determines what the people will demand and what they will produce. The market is encouraging the youth to wear clothes that create excitement in others and lead to rapes and such instances, to eat fast food that is unhealthy, to establish physical contact with any person that one likes, and to misappropriate communal assets such as grazing lands for individual benefit. The Government has absolved itself of the responsibility of regulating the market. The Government must ensure that youth do not wear clothes that encourage promiscuous behaviour. But the market wants precisely this. More promiscuity means more demand for taxis, hotels, condoms, wine and restaurants.

Smith had clearly said that individual freedom must be restricted where it is against justice or where it hurts the larger society. The youth should be prevented from wearing scant clothes if it has a negative impact on the society. The Government today refuses to discharge this responsibility. In the result the market is leading to opposite results. The market is an instrument that has to be used properly. A gun can be used to kill an ascetic or to protect the country from foreign invaders. The Government requires that individuals get a license for purchasing a gun so that people do not use it for killing ascetics. Likewise the market can be used to encourage people to drink bottled soft drinks or to provide fresh fruit juice at low price. The Government must require that companies do not promote consumption of harmful soft drinks under the guise of freedom. Only then the market will be beneficial for the society.

The status of women

By Indu Swami

Women are an integral part of human civilization. No society or country can ever progress without an active participation of women in its overall development. Although the place of woman in society has differed from culture to culture and from age to age, yet one fact common to almost all societies is that woman has never been considered the equal to man. She has been denied full justice-social, economic, political and constitutional and largely ignored as the "weaker sex". The mid-twentieth century saw the upsurge of a new awareness about the women's marginalized position resulting into the birth of Women's Liberation Movement. The term "feminism" was also first used with regard to the issue of equality and Women's Rights Movement. A broad definition of feminism for us today is, "An awareness of women's oppression and exploitation in society, at work and within the family, and conscious action by women and men to change this situation."

The concept of equality, as a correlate of the concept of individual freedom, is alien to Indian society. It was first introduced into Indian culture through western education and through the exposure of western-educated Indians to liberalism, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. But it did not become an operational principle of Indian life until the country achieved independence and adopted a democratic system of government. At that point the Indian constitution explicitly and categorically granted sex equality. Indian women have political rights or status fully equal to that of men. What is more, the constitution declares that women, together with the former untouchable castes and tribal living in remote areas, are to be recognized as 'weaker sections' of the population, and to be specially assisted to function as equals. Thus Indian women did not have to bear the kind of injustices that women in the West had to suffer because of the continuing gap between political ideals and realities.

In addition to the constitutional safeguards and Plan provisions, there are lots of provisions in the legal and the political structures of the country that affirm and reaffirm the equality of the sexes. For example, property rights, the provisions for divorce, employment and health. If a cross-cultural or multi-national analysis of legal provisions for women is made, India is likely to emerge as one of the most progressive countries. For instances, the Directive Principles of the Constitution safeguard the principle of equal pay for equal work, and labour legislation ensures generous maternity leave provisions. Not only does the Indian government officially support and sponsor the use of contraceptives for birth control, but it has also legalized the medical termination of pregnancy (MTP). Several committees and commissions have been appointed to look into the problems of women. When International Women's Year commenced in 1974, India was ready with a sensitive and comprehensive report on the status of women, prepared by a parliamentary committee appointed a few years earlier.

More specifically, women's poor utilization of voting rights is primarily due to their low level of political awareness and sense of political efficacy. They do not yet appreciate their potential power and political leverage as citizens of a democracy. They are ignorant about issues, and are not being encouraged to become interested. Even educated women are apathetic. On the other hand, political parties consider women candidates a poor risk and are unwilling to invest in them. Women themselves find that an active political career is difficult to combine with homemaking. Thus the women who are active in politics are either the wives or daughters of politicians, or women who have entered politics as social workers or as students.

By far the most serious tragedies that occur- dowry deaths, suicide, and impoverishment of widows- arise out of women's failure to use the legal safeguards and redress provisions with reference to marriage, divorce, dowry and property. Their general inability to use the law is further aggravated in situations in which they have to fight a husband or a father. In the role allocation within Indian culture, these are the persons upon whom women normally depend to handle court matters. Better legal aid facilities are needed to enable women to use the legal system against these persons.

The situation of women in India is quite miserable and a great deal needs to be done on their behalf; it is a pity that the Indian statement of their problems is often couched in statements that sound alien and which, therefore, fail to hit the mark. There are at least three specific points on which the perceptions and the sentiments of a noticeably large number of Indian women seem to diverge from those of the Western-influenced feminists.

Although, Indian tradition has for the major part encouraged the subservience of women, applauded their self-effacement, and thus promoted their subjection, it contains several elements that can be developed towards establishing equality for women and towards a new assertion of the full dignity of their personhood. It is important that Indian feminism grasps firmly at these elements as features to build upon. For instance, feminists could work towards building new attitudes among women by highlighting the spiritedness, the intelligence and the resourcefulness of figures like Sita and Savitri. There are several other points at which they can usefully draw from tradition. But, in order to do so they must give conscious and careful thought to how folklore, folksongs, epics and age-old models of virtuous womanhood can be bent to speak for the new value system. Feminists tend to turn away from traditional images, and in the process snap vital links of communication with the masses.

Yet another unique relationship between men and women exists within the joint family. This is the relationship between a women and her husband's younger brother- she is expected to maintain distance from all his elder brothers, but is allowed to interact almost as freely with his younger brothers as she would with her own. In fact often in a joint family the husband's younger brother is a woman's sole friend. He may stand up on her behalf against his own mother in situations in which his elder brother, her husband, may not. Not infrequently both may silently or even secretly protect or support each other against the tyranny of elders- even of her own husband.

India is, as yet, new to the ideology of personal freedom. Both Indian men and Indian women have hitherto functioned under rigid hierarchies; learned to curb their freedom; condition themselves to suppress their needs, silence their senses, and sublimate their selves in a philosophy of self-denial, self-effacement and service. Political freedom from British rule and the adoption of democracy and its accompanying value system have opened up for them totally new opportunities for personal freedom, self-hood and autonomy. The challenge to feminism in India is to help Indian women realize this self-hood in full measure.