Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

Avoid this fuss

Fake currency

Eyeing on Assembly polls

By Arun Nehru

No bus to distant
neighbour

By Tushar Charan

Gandhi in 21st Century

By Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

Dr Manmohan Singh claims the heritage of Gandhiji. He traveled in the rail compartment from which Gandhiji was thrown out in South Africa with much fanfare. But is he following the policies suggested by Gandhi? Gandhi was a strict proponent of economic sovereignty of the country. His thinking can be best understood by comparing with that of Dadabhai Naoroji and Jamshedji Tata. ......more

EDITORIAL

Avoid this fuss

One can't really appreciate the fuss over the Government's decision to lease the land in the famous hill resort of Gulmarg. It has been taken in the best interests of the State. It is motivated by the intention of facilitating the construction of hotels and other resorts for the comfort of tourists. What is wrong with that? It is not the first time that such a step has been taken. Right in the heart of the Summer Capital an imposing hotel building stands along side the Dal Lake as a telling monument of the wonders that outside expertise and investment can work. Many industrialists have set up units in the Jammu region especially. They are contributing to the prosperity of the State apart from expanding avenues of employment. There is little merit in the objection raised by proponents against leasing out the land. According to them, it amounts to "invasion". This is ridiculous to say the least. It is true that the land like government jobs in Jammu and Kashmir is meant only for the State subjects. It is a hangover of princely days that continues till date. One is not going into its merits at this juncture. The fact is that such a legal provision does exist. That does not mean that subsequently another law has not been formulated to provide for lease of 99 years. This was necessitated by the need for inviting monetary inflow to prop up the State's sagging economy. It is true that it has not worked satisfactory. One reason for this is that like all good things its implementation also had come to a halt because of the menace of terrorism. At the same time it has been seriously hit by bureaucratic lethargy, inefficiency and corruption. It is only too well known that an enthusiastic multi-national investor had come to the State only to withdraw in sullenness. Another found the government apparatus going back on its commitment and had to evoke the judicial intervention to rescue his money, material and operations. Efforts should be to get rid of the ills afflicting the dispensation. One finds instead a desire to undo a sound move. Can there be a more powerful example of throwing the baby out along with the bath water?

It needs to be remembered that this is an era in which political barriers are giving way to the craving for overall economic prosperity. People and countries are burying their animosities. Even Communist countries have realised that they can't survive with their outdated economic philosophy: they have loosened their iron fist over private enterprise and property. China has emerged as the most outstanding instance in this behalf. Clearly it is being wiser. It does not say so but ostensibly it has learnt correct lessons from the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union. Its insistence on "pragmatism" explains that it is a conscious decision on its part to join the race instead of being left out of it. The European Union, of course, has emerged as a formidable combination by now. It is not for nothing that India and Pakistan both are keen to bury the hatchet. Although the irritants remain the two neighbouring countries have veered around to the perception that only jointly they can develop their region into an important financial market. Their added strength is their common past and heritage. Unfortunately in our State politics takes precedence over everything else. It is ironical that it has become a profitable avocation while the genuine tools of development have taken a back seat. One finds it amazing that the Congress should develop cold feet after having taken a bold step. Its flip-flop attitude will not help. Likewise it is hardly the issue that the National Conference should use to pick holes in the People's Democratic Party. The State's premier political outfit should instead take the credit that a measure it had originally conceived and taken stands vindicated. Likewise the PDP should encourage the move if it truly wants to achieve its objective of making the State prosperous.

In any case it is extremely odd that mainstream outfits should join the separatist camp to whip up local passions. Their utterances and demonstrations can have only a temporary effect. Younger persons are moving much faster these days than political parties and their ideologues think. Thousands of boys and girls have moved out of the State and are working in premier institutions elsewhere. It takes them some time to settle down in their new surroundings and get remuneration commensurate with their education and experience. They know fully well that they will profit more if either they have or create matching opportunities on the home turf. They will not tolerate any person or party coming in the way of their aspirations. It is only a matter of time before they strike. The writing on the wall should be clear to all those creating hurdles in this case. If they can't invest in the well being of emerging generations the least they can do is to let those help who have the requisite will and resources to do so.

Fake currency

One of the weapons to damage an enemy country is to subvert its economy. Fake currency is one of the tools that are employed for the purpose. It eats into the financial system like a termite. It is not surprising, therefore, that those opposed to our nation have been desperately striving to inject this poison into our dispensation. A positive streak is that they have not succeeded so far. There is no doubt that they will fail in the future too because our structure has several inbuilt advantages thanks to our planners. What is regrettable is that there is no method yet by which it is ensured that there are no sufferers at all. The end recipients are bound to experience the heat and loss both. Of late there have been a series of reports about the people having been caught with counterfeit currency in the State. Being in the border region we are more vulnerable to dirty tricks being played by those seeking to weaken our nation. The latest disclosures are without details about the alleged or perceived source of bogus money and how it has changed hands. In any case these are not entirely new occurrences. Even printing presses have been seized earlier in the process of bringing out false rupee notes. Counting of every note is not possible while handling large sums. It is understandable. The minimum that one can do is to be watchful while transacting business with the new faces.

Eyeing on Assembly polls

By Arun Nehru

The three Assembly elections will now dominate media attention. Bihar and MP by elections have gone in favour of the BJP/JD[U] and there is a revival in the fortunes of the BJP and this trend may well continue in Punjab where the Akali Dal/BJP combination are running ahead of the Congress and in Uttaranchal the BJP have a distinct edge over the Congress but the BSP/UKD may get sufficient seats to ensure a coalition structure in the state. There are also indications of change in 'alliances' in Maharashtra and in Karnataka and every party is looking at the future and these three Assembly elections will hasten the progress of change for the future.The situation in UP is changing rather rapidly and from earlier estimates I find the BJP and the SP consolidating and I think both should thank the HRD Minister Arjun Singh for his policy on 'reservations' and clearly the 'minority' appeasement is consolidating the BJP hold on urban area's and they could well win 70=80 seats as upper caste votes consolidate in their favor and the 'minority' vote as a consequence will consolidate with the SP who could well win 140=150 seats and the loser may be the BSP as Brahmin and Minority voters are likely to drift to winning combinations in different area's and in a coalition structure numbers not ideology determine political combinations and as things stand the next Government in UP could well result in 'unusual' partnerships and everyone including the independents will have a say in the matter. Things may well change but the SP facing the anti incumbency factor seem to be slowly 'recovering' and BJP prospects revive in Urban area's and in addition to the 'reservation' factor there is also the issue of a soft approach on 'terrorism' after the recent blasts in Mumbai and continuing violence in Assam and the related issue of illegal migration.

The BSP leader Mayawati expels a few MP'S and MLA'S in UP and is under some pressure as both the SP and BJP step up their campaigns whilst the Congress shows little inclination to move forward by action in the 'field' and seem to be obsessed by security considerations and is content with media statements. The elections are complicated and it would be foolish to arrive at any premature conclusions and a 'political auction' is inevitable and this could start even before the votes are cast! A few months ago we had a great deal of political attention on the 'Taj' corridor case which is in the Supreme Court and the disproportionate assets issue involving Mayawati and there was the issue of the assets of Mulayam Singh and his family members and there is no 'news' on these fronts and should we be surprised by these developments and as things stand none of these will have any impact on the polls in the State. As things stand both the SP/BSP can form the Government and we may well find that 'superior' tactics in attracting allies by power sharing arrangements will result in power formation. The Jan Morcha headed by VP Singh and a group of 'fringe' parties cannot be written off and only the next few weeks will indicate its damage potential against the SP and in favor of the Congress. The one common factor is that all parties big and small will not lack financial resources and I think we will see more helicopters, planes and security guards then ever before and every leader will spend millions but will give daily sermons on their concern for the poor, the weak and the deprived!

We have a interesting situation developing for the future and there is considerable churning within the political system As a example let us see the South where trends in TN/AP where the AIDMK/TDP were wiped out in the last election show a distinct change. TN is no longer a two party state with decisive swings and the AIDMK could well win 20 out of the 39 seats and in AP the TDP are poised for a 'rousing return' and can win in excess of 20 seats. The Congress were wiped out in Kerala but can win 10 out of 20 seats at the expense of the CPI[M] and in Karnataka both the BJP/JD[S] can lose ground and the Congress share can go up marginally. We have a 'mixed' bag in the South and a similar pattern is emerging in other regions. We will deal with this issue in detail in the coming months but I see the regional parties [NCP, AIDMK, DMK, RJD, JD[U], BJD, TDP,SP,BSP and many other smaller units like JMM,TRS,NC,PDP, RLD] all maintaining or increasing their share whilst the BJP will decline to 80=90 seats and the Left from 65 to 55 [can be lower]. The Congress will have wins and losses and can maintain and perhaps improve upon their numbers of 135 seats. The broad picture is pointing towards greater authority and power share by the regional forces [you can call it the Third Front or Force] and if their numbers increase beyond the Congress you can well see a new PM. We hear often of regional leaders in conflict with each other but in a Coalition numbers dictate postures and swings and political leaders are capable of very complex postures and the rules governing political gymnastics do not exist! The UP election results will give a definite trend for the future and for Mulayam Singh this will be the biggest political battle of his life. Mayawati has also much to fight for and besides UP she has a direct stake in events in Punjab and Uttaranchal and in terms of a National constituency the BSP leader scores over other regional leaders and no power formation at the Center can ignore her political clout.

No bus to distant neighbour

By Tushar Charan

Forget India’s boundary dispute with China and Pakistan or the absence of a transit treaty with Bangladesh or, for that matter, any other dispute with our sovereign neighbours. India, it appears, is unable to contain eruption of frequent bickering between states within the country over relatively smaller issues. Inter-state sharing river waters and redrawing of boundaries on the basis of language spoken on border territories are serious internal maters that defy solution. Even a matter like the plying of bus spirals out of hand and leads to an inter-state warfare that achieves little except harassing the public.

When a bus dispute arises in and around Delhi, it also exposes the extreme callousness of successive Governments in promoting the so-called national capital region that was supposed to relieve the national capital of much of the burden of catering to a burgeoning population.

Not fore the first time, state-run buses between Delhi and Uttar Pradesh suddenly stopped plying on midnight Friday, November 16 when UP impounded 123 buses of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). Passengers coming to Delhi from neighbouring UP towns were left stranded near the border and they had to trudge a couple of kilometres before they could board a DTC bus. Next day, Saturday, it was the turn of daily commuters and school children to be taken by an unpleasant surprise when the Delhi Government, in retaliation, decided to withdraw the DTC services to Noida, an extended eastern suburb of Delhi that happens to be part of UP.

It was a small mercy that all road communication between Delhi and its eastern suburbs in UP and beyond into that state had not come to a standstill. Commuters between Delhi and Noida were left totally at the mercy of private buses, mostly the notorious killer Blue line buses. Despite the mighty inconvenience, not to speak of anxiety and tension that the disruption in bus services had caused there was little or no expression of regrets by authorities as though it was an everyday affair that people had learnt to take in their stride.

Perhaps they have, or else the dispute over plying of buses between Delhi and its neighbouring states, UP (and Haryana) would not have lingered for decades. Take the November 16 incident. Incredible as it may sound, a ‘bus dispute’ has dogged the governments of the national capital and UP for at least 30 years. Noida was one of the many satellite towns in UP (and Haryana) that were developed as part of the national capital region that extends to a radius of about 100 km around Delhi. These satellite towns were to be well integrated with Delhi, an essential component of which is surely a good and reliable transport service. Indeed, a good and smooth road system.

When Noida was being developed, Delhi was asked to help by providing a bus service and the DTC, by no means one of the best transport service operators in the country, duly obliged. Needless to say, the service was nothing more than a token; but it was there. But Noida is a ‘foreign’ territory, not part of Delhi. So the Governments of Delhi and UP had to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to run the bus services, which they did in 1985. It was valid for a period of 15 years. The MoU was not specific to Noida and applied to plying of buses between Delhi and the state of UP and that might have been at the base of the problem.

The MoU expired six years back. It was extended for two years as both Governments had failed to work out long term solution to their differences. It has been adhocism since then.

The differences are rather fundamental. The point of contention is whether the buses should ply on the basis of the number of trips into the other territory or the distance (kilometres) travelled by the buses. The real problem is that neither of these two grounds assures equal remuneration to both the Governments. If the kilometre system is accepted it would give advantage to the buses of the state that cover the most distance; the number of trips criterion would shrink the revenues of the state buses that have to travel long distances.

Perhaps the dispute over distance or number of trips would not have arisen had the MoU been specifically confined to running of bus services between Delhi and Noida. After all the terms and conditions for plying buses between Delhi and Noida need not apply to buses that travel from Delhi to, say, Aligarh or Haridwar, which are not so close to Delhi. The volume of daily commuters between Delhi and Aligarh, for instance, is not comparable to the traffic between Delhi and Noida. That much was apparent 30 years ago too.

Let us look at the Delhi-Noida problem from a wider perspective. If the Sheila Dixit Government (of Delhi) as also the central Government that basically controls the destiny of Delhi are or were really keen and sincere in developing satellite towns why have they failed to provide an integrated, a good and reliable transport system between Delhi and its satellite towns? Things like MoUs are not the concern of the people who have to travel either daily or frequently between two neighbouring towns spread across two states.

It is rather intriguing that Delhi autos can take you to Noida but Noida itself does not have autos. Despite all the boorish ways of their drivers, autos remain a comparatively cheaper mode of transport in a large urban centre.

But come to think of it. It is even more odd that while it is possible to hire an auto for Noida at a railway station in Delhi, no auto is allowed to cross into the Haryana suburbs of Delhi, Gurgaon included. Because no MoU was signed?

Travelling in a public transport or the auto is not a pleasant experience in Delhi, but it has to be endured out of necessity. The governments of Delhi

(which levies an entry tax on vehicles) and the states of UP and Haryana care a fig about the problems of commuters. All they want is people to come in hordes and settle in their territories to bring them all the money by way of taxes or whatever. That is why the very concept of NCR looks flawed more than 30 years after it was floated. The NCR is for developers and colonisers, not for the ordinary people who are unfortunate enough to settle there.

(Syndicate Features)

Gandhi in 21st Century

By Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

Naoroji advocated the policy of growing within the unjust economic order imposed by the British. In 1901 he wrote in Poverty and Un-British Rule in India: "There was not the slightest necessity that India should suffer in order that England might gain. If only the right policy were adopted India could be made prosperous, and at the same time England would reap ten time the benefit that she now had from that connexion... If (the Indian people) were in a position to buy 1 pound worth of British products per head per annum it would equal the amount of British exports to the whole world at the present time. Let India be placed in such a position and they would be utterly unable to supply all her wants." Naoroji's view was that British rule over India could be mutually beneficial if only the British increased the purchasing power of the Indian people. Gandhi did not accept Naoroji's suggestion. He said that Indian rule was more important than increase in purchasing power. Gandhi did not compromise with the British because India was weak. He forged new weapons like Satyagraha to fight the tyranny of British capital.

Not Manmohan Singh. In an interview to Commandingheights.com soon after taking over as Prime Minister, he admitted that international economic game was that of power. But he went on to say that the powerful western countries set the rules of that game. He felt that India did not have the capability of changing those rules. Instead she should try to benefit from the available world economic system as the East Asian countries had done. Dr Singh wants to avoid confrontation with the injustice of the world economic system and wants to secure whatever benefits are possible within the unjust world order. Thus he does not raise issues such as the removal of patents regime from the WTO. His government is willingly giving away India's wealth to the United States in the unnecessary accumulation of forex reserves. The United States, strengthened with Indian money, opposes India's claim to a permanent seat of the Security Council and also India's candidate for the post of Secretary General. He follows Naoroji rather than Gandhi. To paraphrase Naoroji's quote above: "There is no necessity that India should suffer in order that the West might gain. If the Indian people were in a position to buy more Western products it would help the West become prosperous as well. Let India be placed in such a position that the West would be utterly unable to supply all her wants."

At nearly the same time Jamshedji Tata was singing songs in the praise of the British rulers of India. According to his biography published by the Publications Division, speaking to the Parsee community he said: "By their peculiar position (the Parsees) have benefited more than any other class by British rule, and I am sure their gratitude to that rule is, as it ought to be, in due proportion to the advantage derived from it." The gratitude to the British rulers was to be determined by benefits received by the Parsi community. There was no sense of right and wrong, justice and injustice involved here. Tata did not mind the exploitation of India by her British masters as long as the Parsis benefited from the British rule.

Gandhi, of course, thought differently. His primary concern was the welfare of the entire people of India, not just a small wealthy section such as that of the Parsis. He vehemently wanted India to throw out the British rules so that the people could set their own destiny. Once there was a lively debate between Rabindranath Tagore and Gandhi. Tagore opposed Gandhi's demand of Swadeshi saying it mattered little to the people of India whether they were exploited by Indian- or foreign businessmen. In reply Gandhi pointed out that the fruits of the Indian businessman's profits fell on the soil of this country while the fruits of the profits made by foreign businessmen fell on other lands. While recognizing the selfishness inherent in the profit-motive of the businessmen, Gandhi sought to make them work in the interests of the people while leading them against British capital.

Not Dr Manmohan Singh. He is ever pleading with foreign companies to come and make profits in Indian and he guarantees that there will be no restriction on repatriation of profits. Just as Jamshedji Tata thanked the British rulers for the profits made by the Parsis, similarly Dr Man Mohan Singh thanks the WTO for the profits made by the Multinational companies in India.

It is argued that the circumstances have changed and Gandhi's policies have to be adjusted to the current times. There is merit t this argument. We are independent today and our economy is growing at 8 percent per year and our companies are making inroads into he world markets. But we cannot change the fundamental objectives and premises that Gandhi stood for. If at all this newfound strength of the Indian businessmen should be used for the furtherance of the objectives set by Gandhi who did not want Indian people to be exploited by British capitalists or Indian businessmen to exploit other countries. He wanted free movement of ideas and technologies across the borders. Thus he said he wanted to keep his windows open for ideas from foreign lands but the doors shut.

The correct model of globalization, according to Gandhi would be to make available free flow of knowledge and ideas. Rules should be made to force big companies to give out information in public good rather than to protect their monopoly. The use of current knowledge for public good was more important than the generation of new knowledge the fruits of which would be uncertain. The Gandhian perspective in the WTO would be to seek loosening of TRIPS agreement.

The objective of economy, according to Gandhi, was to secure self-respecting work for the people. He did not want the people to be made dependent on charity doled out by the Government as under the National Employment Guarantee Scheme. He advocated the use of Khadi to provide employment to the people.

Not Dr Manmohan Singh. He is giving full freedom to the big companies to first destroy the livelihood of the people. The use of harvesters has taken away the jobs of the agricultural labour at the most lucrative time of harvesting. Excavators have reduced demand for labour in construction and cable laying. Power looms have killed the handlooms. Gandhi would have nothing of this.