Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

Distribute industrial
licenses, not land

By Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

By Allabaksh

Mahatma Gandhi has long been hailed as the 'apostle of peace'. But he was never given the biggest peace prize in the world. Now we have on the good authority of the permanent secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Geir Lundestad that political and other considerations prevented the Mahatma from being honoured with the Nobel peace prize. . . .......more

Western media bias shows..

By S F Media Critic

If there is anything that makes both the liberal and the orthodox among the Hindus squirm equally it is the bane of the caste system that continues to divide the community on arbitrary grounds. A total eclipse of the caste system is be decades away. The government policies are not being bold enough to end it quickly. Yet, it will be unfair to suggest that nothing has ......more

EDITORIAL

Think it over

It is not good for any place to have the dubious reputation of being a sanctuary of militants. We in this State need to consider this rather seriously. It does cause heartache whenever there is talk of major terror incidents anywhere in the country having one link or the other with the State. The last week, for instance, has ended with television news channels again and again flashing the news of a Karanataka police team heading for Srinagar. We are told that this exercise has become necessary in the wake of disclosures following an encounter with the Pakistani terrorists in Mysore and e-mail threats to VIPs emanating from Kerala. There is said to be some connection between the two instances. Police inquiries have given rise to the suspicion that the source of mischief is located in the Kashmir region. One can't say that the trouble ought to have been confined to southern states. Such events anywhere must be condemned. There is no place for violent thought and action in an enlightened society. All that we wish is that our State somehow does not invite attention in these matters. Much to our anguish we know that it is a vain hope at least for the time being. An inimical neighbour has set its covetous eyes on this picturesque land. It is determined to keep it on the boil. Undoubtedly its mischief stands exposed in front of local inhabitants. It had sold wild dreams to a section of the youth only to torch them into an inferno. Having lost all its credibility it has taken to more devious tactics to pursue its agenda. It is patronising outfits that are like full-fledged private armies intoxicated with the twin evils of firepower and faulty interpretation. How else can one explain the shifting of headquarters of "banned" terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Al-Badr and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) to Muzaffarabad (the Capital of the occupied territory) from Pakistan? Their highly motivated members have been pushed into this side of the Line of Control. The killers are on the prowl along with their agents.

One can't help but notice that the police teams from most of the states have undertaken probes on either side of the Pir Panjal. Whether there are blasts in the national capital or in Bangalore, Varanasi or Gujarat their genesis has been traced to the State. It is not merely a needle of suspicion going berserk. More often the worst fears have come true. A senior minister had nearly lost his job after the revelation about the misuse of his ancestral house in the south of the Valley. It was alleged that they had used the building as a hideout for planning murder and mayhem in the highly revered Akshardham temple in Ahmedabad.

We in this State can't overlook our responsibility in such scenario. In fact, we must share part of the blame for not having been alert enough. Why at all should the trouble-makers find it easy to stay in our midst? We should keep a close watch on our neighbourhood and isolate those brining a bad name to us. For our part we have struck a note of caution earlier also. We shall keep doing so till the State is completely exorcised of undesirable elements. Enough is enough.

Pragmatic advice

It was only befitting that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had quoted Swami Vivekananda during his speech at the passing-out parade of Indian Police Service probationers at the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy in Hyderabad last weekend. Swami, he recalled, had said he looked forward to the day when our men and women would be possessed of "muscles of iron and nerves of steel and a mind made of such stuff of which thunder bolts are made." To this Dr Singh perhaps would have added another piece of the great sage's advice: "Be moral, be brave, be stridently moral and brave. Don't bother your head with religious theories; cowards only sin, brave men never. Try to love anybody and everybody." Undoubtedly the Prime Minister's utterances have been laced with a lot of pragmatism quite relevant particularly to our State. He has been candid in telling the police force that it has several challenges on hand and it is expected to rise to the occasion "with your understanding, your specialisation and your empathy." Naturally terrorism has figured on top of his list. Very rightly he has described it as the "most dangerous threat today." The Prime Minister has painted the grim picture as it exists: "From an occasional footnote, it (terrorism) has become a hydra-headed monster. There are several strains of terrorism present, and you will need to keep abreast of developments in tackling this great danger. Today's terrorists are most sophisticated, have trans-national linkages and have adequate resources. Both knowledge and determination are required if we are to succeed against these elements." At the same time, he has analysed the problem of alienation and called for addressing it. Making a specific reference to the State, among other militancy-affected areas, he has broadly laid down the contours of tasks to be executed. He has expressed the view: "Many of you are being posted to areas like the North East, Jammu and Kashmir, or states where Naxalites are active today. The problems in each of these regions are different. The nuances of each situation have to be appreciated and skilfully dealt with. All this will demand sensitive handling of these complicated situations on your path. Understand the reasons for disaffection and alienation and possibly, you will find some answers to your challenges. In the final analysis, see yourself as the guardian of all citizens, including the alienated. Try to bring the alienated back to the path laid down by law of the land."

As the one keen on ushering in police reforms the Prime Minister has been frank enough to let the uniformed men know that they have to go in for an image correction. He has told them to "make it a force that looks after one and all. A force that marshals the best that is there in modern science and technology for upholding the rule of law… We must end feudal vestiges in our services where lower staff are treated like menials." In a pep talk, he has chosen the occasion to jog their memory: "The police are a manifest symbol of a State's authority. If the police behave in that spirit and are seen as upholders of the rule of law, then their legitimacy and of the State itself is enhanced." Is there doubt about this?

Distribute industrial licenses, not land

By Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

Communist Party of India has raised doubts about the efficacy of Revamped 20-Point Garibi Hatao programme to be launched by the UPA Government shortly. The 20-Point Programme of the seventies and eighties had given much emphasis on land reforms though this was not carried through in practice. This crucial item has been dropped from the new avatar of the programme. The success of land reforms in attaining poverty alleviation cannot be doubted. West Bengal has the distinction of distributing nearly one-half of all land distributed in the country and also attaining high score in poverty alleviation.

That was in the eighties though. The character of our economy has changed much since then. Presently about 60 percent of our people livings in rural areas make only 22 percent of the national income. 40 percent people living in cities make the remaining 78 percent of the national income. The average income of an urbanite is about five times that of a rural person. Those living off agriculture are worse off than those living off manufacturing and services. Worse, the share of agriculture in our national income is falling rapidly. It has declined from a domineering 90 percent at the time of Independence to 22 percent presently. The difference between urban- and rural incomes is widening proportionately. Distribution of land in this situation will provide only minimal relief to the poor. It is like distribution of water from a near-dry well. Such distribution may help the poor keep their body and soul together but it cannot remove their poverty. It is necessary to distribute such productive resources to the poor that enables them to make a decent living. For example, distribution of small plots of land in the cities will enable them to set up shops and make a good income.

The more difficult problem is that opportunities of livelihood are shrinking for the poor. Cottage industries like envelope- and candle making, Nautanki and Yakshagana, Rasvanti and agriculture are shrinking. Big companies using capital intensive machines have provided cheaper alternatives such as plastic bags, TV and bottled soft drinks. In its anxiety to attain high rates of economic growth the Government has given license to big industries to enter into areas which were being catered mostly by small and cottage industries and to destroy them.

It is necessary to redistribute productive activities in manufacturing and services sectors which are growing rapidly along with redistribution of land. The main hurdle is that there may be some negative impact of such redistribution on growth. For example, the Government can make a law that all urban transport would be undertaken by cycle rickshaws. That would create a large number of jobs. But it would entail loss of time of engineers, doctors and architects in commuting from home to office and lead to low growth. It is necessary to find such areas that have less negative impact of growth. Some redistribution can even have a positive impact. The redistribution of soft drink business would be one. The Government can impose a heavy tax on bottled soft drink manufacturers. That would regenerate businesses of buttermilk- and sugarcane juice vendors. It would also improve the health of the people and lead to higher economic growth. Al it requires is a will to put restrictions on big companies. Thus, the Marxists should demand redistribution of productive opportunities in manufacturing and services sectors along with that of land. It will not do to focus on land alone.

Mainstream economists will respond that the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme seeks to provide precisely such employment opportunities to the poor. This approach is fraught with problems. The policies of the UPA Government are first rendering the juice vendor unemployed 365 days in a year by promoting bottled drinks. It is then imposing some tax on the same big companies and trying to provide 100 days employment under Government programmes to those displaced. That will not do. In the end it will lead to lower incomes for the affected persons. 100 days employment in Government schemes cannot make up for 365 days employment in cottage industries. Effort must be made to prevent the loss of employment first. Giving 100 days employment may serve as good propaganda but only until the policies leading to the loss of 365 days employment can be hidden from the public gaze.

Truly speaking the difference between the policies proposed by UPA and CPM is small. Both agree to impose higher taxes in order to support Government-run employment, health and education programmes. Both condone the loss of employment due to the entry of large companies. The difference is that the UPA seeks to impose tax on a wider base as evinced by the expansion of the service tax; while CPM wants more taxes to be imposed on the superrich and speculators.

The problem, however, is not of being superrich. The problem is the direction in which wealth is used. Gandhiji said that the rich should consider themselves to be trustees of the nation. Such super richness is not bad. Traditionally the Sethji used to live simple lifestyle. They traveled on cycle rickshaws and in third class compartment in the trains. They provided seeds to the farmers at the sowing season and collected it back along with interest at the time of harvest. Such richness binds the society. The character of the present superrich is entirely different. They prefer to life in cordoned off areas where the poor cannot enter as is envisaged under the Special Economic Zones. They want to employ few workers in order to avoid labour trouble. Such richness is socially disintegrating.

The need is to provide direction to the rich. Wealth should be put to socially good uses. The rich save and invest. They bear the tension of losing millions everyday. They should be honoured for their work. The Government must make policies that encourage the rich to establish industries that generate much employment. Agarbatti and beedi are two examples where the rich help a large number of people to make their livelihood. This model should be replicated in other industries. Tax relief can be given to those industrialists employing a large number of workers.

The UPA, however, equates ostentatious consumption with growth. It seeks to emulate the growth model of the Western countries. The Marxists, on the other hand, consider all richness to be bad. Both approaches will fail. UPA approach will lead to social instability. The poor will see the luxury of the shopping malls and rebel as seen in resurgence of Naxalite violence in the country. The Marxists will do no better. By denigrating all richness they take away the productive energy of the business class. The need is to recognize the contribution of the businessmen but to give direction to their energies.

UPA and CPM should both understand that neither land reforms nor 100 days employment under the NREGS will do. The poor will ultimately see through the fact that UPA policies have led to their becoming poorer. Thus the Marxists should demand redistribution of productive assets in manufacturing and service sectors along with land.

Politics behind awards

By Allabaksh

The announcement of almost any award is almost always followed by controversy. So, it was hardly surprising to read that not everyone agreed that two of the most prestigious awards this year, the Nobel Prize for peace and the Man Booker prize for literature, were rightly bestowed on Mohammed Yunus of Bangladesh and his Grameen Bank, and Kiran Desai (for her novel, The Inheritance of Loss) respectively. It does appear that the number of dissenters is smaller than those who support the choice for these two awards. Some of the questions raised did not look pertinent to a debate that followed the announcements.

For instance, a 'criticism' heard about Kiran Desai, 35, was that she was not 'British' enough, having lived in India for the first 15 years of her life then spending a year in England before moving on to New York. And most of her award-winning novel was written in India. Surely, if the Man Booker Prize is to go to only those who are blue-blooded British, she should not have been nominated in the first place. The announcement of the Booker Prize winner comes months after a 'long list' is released (August 14 this year) which is later reduced to a 'shortlist' out of which is picked the eventual winner (October 10). Some British critics did not even get their facts right when they described Kiran Desai's equally famous writer mother, Anita Desai, (nominated for the Booker prize thrice) as 'German' while some others in Britain commented on her wearing a saree to the Guildhall award ceremony when actually she was wearing a dress. In any case, it is not clear how this kind of criticism or comment is relevant to judging the merit of the award winner.

It was appalling to find that some people see the 50,000 pound sterling Booker prize, being sponsored by the Man group in Britain since 2002, as something of a horse race because it is preceded by reports of 'favourites', complete with odds being offered by the bookies. It appears this year Kiran Desai was not the most favourite; that place was assigned to Sarah Williams (The Night Watch). There was an almost last minute 'surge' in Kiran Desai's favour (why?). The suggestion seemed to be that it was all a bit mysterious, though the judges had heaped fulsome praise on her work.

Now about the Peace Prize. The criticism about Mohammed Yunus was not about his universally praised work-pioneering the micro-credit system that aims at removing poverty among the rural, particularly women, in Bangladesh. It was something that can be called more fundamental. The economics professor, it was argued, after all made no straightforward and direct contribution to 'peace', the avowed purpose of awarding the 'peace' prize. He has nothing 'tangible' to show by way of ending a big and festering conflict within a country or between two countries, as some of the previous recipients are supposed to have done. It has been said that late Alfred Nobel himself had underlined in his will that the Peace Prize should go to 'someone who had achieved something' in the cause of bringing peace.

Even while applauding Mohammed Yunus contribution to poverty alleviation, it has been said that since he has been involved in his Grameen Bank for some years now he could have been awarded in any of the previous years or in the years to come. His mission will surely not end with the Nobel award.

There may be some force in these arguments. Perhaps Mohammed Yunus himself has anticipated some of the criticism because he had said that he believed there was a connection between programmes to eradicate poverty and peace. He thought that removal of poverty was a stepping stone to peace.

A community that has rid itself of its poverty is certainly less inclined to opt for long spells of violence than the one where inequities and income disparities are pronounced. The prosperous nations of the world generally live in peace, though lately some of them might have been going through the pangs of ethnic and communal strife. The victims of such strife trace the origin of their trouble to poverty and deprivation, though the majority communities in host nations insist the unrest is related to refusal to 'integrate' with the hosts and succumbing to provocative rhetoric from clerics.

A more simple explanation could be that each year more people die of poverty than war. If it is not digression, it might be added that in a city like Delhi more people die in road accidents than terrorist attacks and culpable homicide!

The 'peace' award being given to someone not directly involved in a 'peace' effort was previously given to Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai (in 2004) and it was also followed by some criticism. The Nobel committee was seen to be diluting the peace award by 'expanding' its scope. How was Maathai's de-forestation work, highly commendable though it may be, related to peace? The chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee replied that her work contributed to promoting democracy and human rights, which in turn advanced peace.

The award for Mohammed Yunus and his Grameen Bank was particularly disappointing for those who were hoping that the honour this year will go to the former Finnish President, Martti Ahtisaari, who had negotiated a peace deal to end the long but bloody conflict between the Indonesian government and the Ache rebels. There is, however, still hope for Martti Ahtisaari, who has been negotiating a final settlement for Kosovo that appeals to the Western nations. However, at this point no easy-'peaceful'-solution of the Kosovo problem is in sight.

It will be unfortunate that 'political considerations' become the main basis of awarding the Nobel peace prize. As it is, some go to the extent of suspecting a 'hidden hand 'playing a role in the selection of the eventual winner.

Last year, for instance, the Egyptian head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed El Baradei, was the winner of the Nobel peace prize. No quarrel about this selection, except to say that critics felt that it had something to do with his ardent advocacy for ending first the Iraqi and then Iranian nuclear programmes, both of which opposed intensely by the US and its Western allies. In 2003, an Iranian human rights lawyer, Shirin Ebadi, was the Nobel peace winner-at a time when the US displeasure with Iran had begun to climb high. The signing of the Middle East 'peace' accord that was supposed to pave the way for ending the Israel-Palestine conflict was also awarded with a Nobel peace prize in 1994. The Middle East accord appeared hastily contrived even then as moments of peace in the region have been few and far between; now it is in a shambles--and so is the region. (Syndicate Features)

Western media bias shows..

By S F Media Critic

Nonetheless, in the eyes of the Western media the caste system remains as rigid in today's India as it was in the Vedic times, aeons ago. At any rate that is the impression one gets after reading a report on a London based global radio website about a 'mass conversion rally' held in Nagpur on September 14. One does not know how the event was covered by the BBC World (TV channel) as the 'patriotic' local cable operator had apparently decided long ago that BBC reports (along with Pakistan TV) were bad for Indian stomachs and stopped beaming signals from the two channels to the subscribers. The impression of biased reporting by that 'premier' world news dispenser was, however, strengthened after reading the account of the same rally in the Times of India. Judge for yourself.

The first thing that struck one as rather odd was that the BBC report failed to mention the fact that the 'star' of the Nagpur rally, Bahujan Samaj Party's Mayawati, actually broke off after a brief presence to hold a 'parallel rally' (Times of India). Her rally drew a far bigger crowd of 40,000, 'unprecedented in non-election season' (ToI). Her show had obviously taken the wind out of the 'original' rally sails.

What was perhaps even more newsy and not reported by the BBC was her declaration at the 'parallel' rally that she was not planning to convert to Buddhism till she achieved the goal of becoming the prime minister of India, a wish expressed by her mentor Kanshi Ram, who had died only days ago. Her unequivocal stance on the subject of conversion has profound political implications. It should not have been missed in any fair reporting of the rally.

The report seemed to suggest that the 'mass conversion rally' was confined to Dalits about to embrace Buddhism when the fact was that a Christian organisation was also very much into the act, to convert the dalits into their fold. It quoted Joseph D'Souza, president of the Dalit Freedom Movement, and one of the organisers of the Nagpur rally, as having said that a (Christian) conversion was 'a celebratory occasion'. Thousands were converted said the report which also quoted Udit Raj of the SC/ST confederation saying the number was 2500. However, the Times of India put the figure of converts' at 600.

The Nagpur rally was organised by the All India Confederation of SC and ST Organisations and the All India Christian Council to mark the World Freedom of Religion Day. The additional information on the BBC site was that the event was organised to protest against the injustices of the caste system and the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Buddhism by the late Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian constitution and one of the most prominent Dalit leaders.

While the fact that Ambdekar wrote anti-discrimination provisions and a quota system into the Constitution was duly noted in the radio report, it missed some how to note that these provisions are in operation though their pace and the manner of implementation may not be very satisfactory. It is not my case that this bit of information was deliberately omitted; even if it is inadvertent, it leaves the impression that old discriminatory practices against the dalits continue apace.

By way of a background, the BBC report on the Nagpur rally also talked about tough laws enacted in some Indian states that make conversion into Christianity more difficult. It failed to add that a lot of Indians as also the majority of Indian states are opposed to that law. As stated in the beginning, India is shamed by the inequities in the caste system. But a stark fact that is sometimes overlooked by the critics of the caste system in and out of India is that this pernicious practice is actually not confined to the Hindu society alone.

There are many Christian and Muslim converts from the lower Hindu castes who feel that they continue to be viewed as outcastes in their new religion by the 'upper castes'. If the debate is to be broadened one could also raise the question of propriety of converts to 'egalitarian' religions demanding the concessions given to Hindu Dalits. (Syndicate Features)