EDITORIAL
Qazi's verdict
The fence eats the crop.
Is this not the only conclusion that can be drawn from
Forest Minister Qazi Mohammad Afzal's highly revealing
interview to this newspaper recently? Apparently he feels
that he is sitting on a heap of corruption and has to
take strong measures to get rid of it. He is rather
categorical: "I have no hesitation in saying that
due to political intervention, Forest has become a
totally ruined department." The circumstances in
which the Qazi was first relieved and then given back the
charge as the Forest Minister in just three months are
well known and merit no elaboration. It is also not
hidden that the Chief Minister had in the intervening
period ordered a probe into the functioning of the Forest
Department. Mr B.R. Kundal had conducted the inquiry
before his own elevation as the Chief Secretary. He has
since submitted a report. The Qazi has expressed the
view: "Our forests are denuded with impunity and
there's a lot of political intervention from several
quarters. In August itself, I had told honourable Chief
Minister that MLAs as well as the people they represent
are not satisfied with the system in Forest sector. I had
made it candidly clear that media was equally
dissatisfied and the timber procured from our forests was
not reaching the common man." His observation is
shocking: "It's a veritable big mafia, completely
intact even after the Kundal probe. It has become a huge,
lucrative business for well-connected people. Until we
take a major initiative, it's not going to break."
The Qazi goes on to cite specific instances which confirm
a loot-and-scoot situation with politicians and officials
building a strong nexus. The sum and substance of all
that he has said is that the timber mafia has been active
at all levels. It manipulates transfers and postings,
strips forests of their green gold and smuggles trees.
The Qazi does mention a
few officials by name. One of them has been selected for
a training course despite an investigation pending
against him. All these officials are comparatively junior
functionaries. He has not named any politician. Perhaps
he needs to gather some more concrete evidence which can
stand a close scrutiny. He wants to launch "a major
drive against the mafia" and "is ordering a
high-level inquiry as I have reasons to believe that
higher level officials and some politicians are actually
involved… This is our State's biggest problem
…Now that I am back to the work, I'll mean
business."
What prevents him from
going ahead and taking a plunge to purge his ministry of
all dishonest elements? His task should be rather easy in
a dispensation committed to provide corruption-free
governance. There has to be some explanation for our
vanishing forest cover. One can come across bald patches
in all directions. As a result we are also faced with the
problems like soil erosion and depleting natural water
resources. The words alone howsoever brave they may be
can't ensure an effective cure. The Qazi ought to
remember this. For his verdict to carry conviction he has
to conclusively nail the culprits. The ordinary masses
will not be convinced otherwise. As it is their
impression of the political class generally is "is
hamam mein sab nange hain" (in this bathroom all
are naked).
Record is straight
The Army has done well to
straighten the record about the Siachen pilferage scam.
Of course, Defence Minister A.K. Antony had spoken on the
same lines earlier. The elite force's latest
clarification is nevertheless in order. It was called for
after "State Government sources" had shown it
in a poor light accusing it of not cooperating enough to
unearth the scandal. The Army has rebutted the charges
against it as "not correct". Two courts of
inquiry have been ordered into the scandal that relates
to unlawful sale of ration and equipment in open markets
in Leh. One of them has been completed. Thirteen Army
personnel including three officers have been booked. Of
them, ten soldiers face disciplinary action and the trio
of officers is being subjected to administrative
measures. The second court of inquiry has begun. The Army
has denied the insinuation that it was not rendering
assistance to the police to finish its probe. Going by
its version it seems that the police has erred. In first
information reports lodged in Leh the police has named
five officers for their alleged involvement in the case.
The Army has repeatedly intimated to the police that that
out of these five officers two were never posted in Leh.
Two others have been posted out and one is still there.
The Army has sounded the police about the availability of
one official in Leh to facilitate its investigations. It
has asked the police for the nature of allegations about
the other two officers so that the process can be
initiated for their return to Leh. It is still awaiting
the response. One hopes that such explaining is enough to
bury the hatchet between the police and the Army. We have
expressed distress in these columns earlier as well about
the manner in which the Leh police has painted the Army
with black brush as if it was shielding the guilty. Its
approach was unnecessarily deflecting attention from the
primary task of reaching the truth. There can't be two
opinions that the material meant for the troops should
not at all be misused. Indeed, a situation can't be
allowed to be created in which jawans run short of
supplies and have to watch their backs for
replenishments. We sincerely hope everyone concerned
resists the temptation of rushing to a conclusion on the
basis of unfounded and half-baked information. The
tendency to hit below the belt should also be carefully
avoided. For instance, there is no point in saying that
by amplifying its stand now the Army has
"admitted" the existence of the scam. The fact
is that the Army has never denied it.
It is to be remembered
that what is involved in this instance in the final
analysis is the defence of the world's highest
battlefield which is also one of the coldest. The
country's armed forces in Siachen serve this territory at
a height exceeding what their counterparts are called
upon to do in North American, European and African
mountains. The logistical and physical task of looking
after their requirements in temperature far below zero is
extremely challenging. No doubt there has been
improvement in terms of facilities particularly during
the last decade. However, this can't be the reason for
permitting stealing or squandering away of any object.
|
Scramble
over Bharat Ratna
By Amulya
Ganguli
L.K. Advani's
somewhat unusual proposal for
conferring the Bharat Ratna on
Atal Behari Vajpayee has set off
an unseemly scramble among
politicians to nominate their own
heroes. While Jyoti Basu has
wisely scotched all attempts to
drag him into the race, the names
of others like Kanshi Ram and M.
Karunanidhi are still doing the
rounds.
This is probably the
first time that such a
controversy has arisen over an
award which is normally quietly
decided by the Government and is
never made the subject of a
public debate. The responsibility
for deviating from the norm and
creating a row about this most
prestigious of awards is
Advani's. Even his very
suggestion has raised questions
about his motive, for it has been
said that in the guise of
honouring Vajpayee, Advani was
trying to hasten his departure
from public life so that he will
not stand in the way of Advani
fulfilling his life's ambition of
becoming the prime minister.
If the BJP leader
hadn't raised the issue, it is
possible that no names would have
been announced, as there hasn't
been since 2001 when the
celebrated singer, Lata
Mangeshkar, and the shehnai
maestro, Bismillah Khan, received
the award. The present seven-year
gap is the longest. Earlier,
there were two five-year
intervals. The first of them was
between 1966, when Lal Bahadur
Shastri received the award, and
in 1971 when it was conferred on
Indira Gandhi. Shastri was the
first to receive it posthumously.
The second five-year gap was
between 1992, when Satyajit Ray
received it, and 1997, when it
was conferred on A.P.J. Abdul
Kalam.
The only major
dispute concerning the award was
in 1992, when a legal petition
challenged the conferment on
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on the
grounds that the country still
didn't have any final
confirmation of his death. So,
the award was withdrawn. But
there has been more than one
occasion when the government's
judgment on its selection was
questioned. One such was in 1961
when it was given to veteran
Congress leader, Purushottamdas
Tandon, who was also known as
something of a Hindu revivalist.
The second occasion
was when former Tamil Nadu Chief
Minister and founder of the All
India Anna Dravida Munettra
Kazhagam (AIADMK), M.G.
Ramachandran, received the award
posthumously in 1988. This was
probably the first time when
political considerations played a
greater role in the government's
choice than an assessment of the
recipient's stature at the
national level. Two years later,
B.R. Ambedkar was also a
posthumous recipient. But
although this conferment, too,
had a political overtone in the
sense that it took place during
the Mandal upsurge, no one could
deny the respect which the Dalit
leader has always enjoyed among
all sections of people.
Perhaps the charge
of politics being a major factor
in determining the choice can
also be levelled in the selection
of V.V. Giri in 1975. Like
Ramachandran, Giri was also not
an all-India figure. If he was
still chosen, it was probably the
government of Indira Gandhi's,
and the ruling Congress's, way of
saying "thank you" to
him for the role he played during
the Congress split of 1969 when
he was Indira Gandhi's choice as
the President against Sanjeeva
Reddy, the nominee of the
Congress "Syndicate".
As if to show that the victorious
party no longer had any grouses
against the Syndicate, the award
was given next year posthumously
to K. Kamaraj, who was a member
of the supposedly anti-Indira
group.
As may be expected,
there were fewer controversies
when non-politicians were chosen.
Among them were the first
naturalized citizen, Mother
Teresa, who received the award in
1980, and two foreigners, Khan
Abdul Ghaffar Khan in 1987 and
Nelson Mandela in 1990. However,
there was a row when Ravi Shankar
was given the award in 1999, for
shehnai maestro, Bismillah Khan,
made known his unhappiness at
being overlooked. Khan got the
award two years later.
There has been a
happy trend in recent years to
choose people of eminence in
various fields of life rather
than politicians, which was the
earlier practice. Apart from C.
Subramaniam, founder of the Green
Revolution, in 1998, Jayaprakash
Narayan in 1998 and Gopinath
Bordoloi, a veteran freedom
fighter of Assam, in 1999 - the
last two posthumously - the
others who received the award
were M.S. Subbulakshmi in 1998,
Ravi Shankar and Amartya Sen in
1999, and Lata Mangeshkar and
Bismillah Khan in 2001.
There were
non-politicians in the earlier
years, too, as when C.V. Raman,
the Nobel Prize winning
physicist, received the award in
1954, followed by Sir M.
Visvesvarrayya, the well known
engineer, in 1955, and D.K.
Karve, the educationist, who was
given the award in his centenary
year in 1958. He died in 1962.
The Sanskrit scholar, P.V. Karve,
received the award in 1963.
There were also S.
Radhakrishnan, the first
recipient in 1954, who was more a
philosopher than politician, and
Zakir Hussain (1963), who was
also more an educationist than
politician. But, by and large, it
was the people in the latter
category who had a greater share.
It might be better if the focus
is shifted mainly to artistes,
scientists, educationists,
sportsmen and similar other
eminent figures at the expense of
politicians. (IPA)
|
|
|
Adopt
cautious approach with
China
By
V.N. Paranjape
Prime
Minister Dr. Manmohan
Singh and his Chinese
counterpart Wen Jiabao
signed a joint statement
outlining the contour of
relations between the two
countries, which had been
full of suspicion of each
others intentions and
desire to dominate
Southeast Asia,
particularly in case of
China. Though Chinese
rulers have shown face to
face benevolence but in
practice they are
expansionists. India
would be committing the
greatest folly if its
leaders start trusting
the Chinese for their
"honest" words.
While
talking to the Indian
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao
very magnanimously
offered China's support
to help India in playing
a greater role in the
United Nations, including
in the Security Council.
On India's quest for
civil nuclear energy, the
statement followed
through the indication
that had earlier come
from Wen to drop its
resistance. But it was
also made clear that
China, as a member of
NSG, has certain
obligations to keep,
which means Beijing will
not in the final
countdown support India.
If China doesn't put
obstacles directly its
lackeys-our comrades-will
do the job for their
masters!
The
"Shared Vision"
document did not reflect
the fresh commonality of
concern between the two
sides over the unfolding
situation in Pakistan.
China, which has
historically winked at
offences of Pakistan,
including its support to
anti-India terrorism, is
suddenly more
appreciative of the
dangers that terrorism
and the situation in
Pakistan pose. Contrast
this statement what China
is doing in Pakistan by
extending all possible
military help, including
nuclear and missiles
technology to contain
India.
In
any case, the progress on
other issues encouraged
the Indian side to
propose dates for an
early meeting of the
group of experts set up
to harmonise the
perceptions on the LAC.
Chinese side were yet to
respond. But even if they
don't, the national
security adviser M.K.
Narayanan is to discuss
the border issue with his
counterpart, Dai Bingguo.
India has been buying the
idea put forward by China
not to let the issue
interfere with the
process of normalisation
of ties. The two sides
reiterate their
determination to seek a
fair, reasonable and
mutually acceptable
solution to the boundary
question and to build a
boundary of peace and
friendship on the basis
of the Agreement on
Political Parameters and
Guiding Principles for
the Settlement of the
India-China Boundary
Question, an euphemism
that China has the right
to demand more Indian
territories, at the same
time continue its
occupation of what it has
got by use of force.
The
Chinese desire that India
should continue to adhere
to the agreement that the
exiled Dalai Lama should
not indulge in any kind
of political activity.
The two sides believe
that in the new century,
Panchsheel, the five
principles of peaceful
co-existence, should
continue to constitute
the basic guiding
principles for good
relations between all
countries and for
creating the conditions
for realising peace and
progress of the
humankind.
Sadly,
Indian leaders become
defensive when dealing
with China and Dr.
Manmohan Singh is no
exception, given his
assurance to China that
India is not part of any
"so-called
contain-China
initiative".
During
the honeymoon period of
Hindi-Chini-Bhai-Bhai the
Mao-Zhou war machine was
determined to take over
and militarily hold both
Sinkiang and Tibet as an
assertion of new China's
self-definition against
Russia and Britain; hence
their denunciation of
Nehru as a pawn first of
Britain and then of
Russia. China is building
a road surreptitiously
between Sinkiang and
Tibet through Aksai Chin
was reminiscent of
Russia's coercive
behaviour against China
in building the
Trans-Siberian Railway
through Chinese territory
to Vladivostok. At worst,
the Indians would have to
admit that erstwhile
J&K State since
October 1947 had become
an ownerless entity whose
unclaimed territory had
been carved up by force
by the new Pakistan, new
India and new China.
From
an Indian standpoint, the
traditional recognised
boundary placed Aksai
Chin clearly in Ladakh
and not Tibet. Aksai Chin
is a salt pit without
"a blade of
grass" but for all
anyone knows, could be
rich in minerals.
Karakorum Pass is also
newly valuable to the
Chinese as they seek to
develop a land-route from
Baluchistan's Gwadar Port
through Pakistan to
China. If India has lost
Aksai Chin and Karakorum
Pass by force of arms
without compensation,
force of arms may be the
only means of retrieval.
Due compensation from
China could be Chumbi
Valley between Sikkim and
Bhutan, and China seems
once to have mentioned
mutual perpetual lease of
Aksai Chin and Chumbi
Valley.
If
China really wants a
peaceful co-existence, it
has to choose a
out-of-the-box gesture
that will signal to Delhi
that it will review and
recast its South Asia and
nuclear policies and
embark on approaches that
are not deemed to be
anti-India. This
politico-diplomatic
initiative can synergize
the traction that the two
economies can bring to
bear on the overall
development of the entire
Southern Asian region
that includes the less
developed parts of the
Mainland that are
contiguous to the Indian
subcontinent.
Reciprocally, India can
help remove the misplaced
sense that its own US
policies are to
"contain
China". INAV
|
|
|
|
Salary
increase
By
Jagdish Dwivedi
The
salaries of the
President, Vice-President
and Governors were given
a handsome raise by the
Union Cabinet on January
10. While it was doubled
in the case of the
President, the hikes
turned out to be more
than 100 per cent in the
case of the other two
offices. The President
will now get a pay-cheque
of Rs. one lakh every
month, up from Rs. 50,000
per month; while the
Vice-President's monthly
salary will now be Rs.
85,000. It was Rs. 40,000
earlier.
For
the Governors of 28
states, the monthly
salary will be Rs.
75,000, up from the
pay-cheque of Rs. 36,000
they were getting earlier
every month. It was not
immediately clear whether
the hikes in the salaries
of Governors would rub
off automatically on
Lieutenant-Governors. The
revision will come into
play with retrospective
effect from January 1,
2007.
The
salaries of the President
and Vice-President were
last revised in 1998, and
then too, the pay-hikes
came into force from
retrospective effective
from January 1, 1996.
The
salary-hikes were
initially scheduled to
have been approved by the
Union Cabinet in June
last year, but a decision
on the issue was deferred
in view of the impending
elections to the posts of
President and
Vice-President. Also, it
was felt that the
Governors too needed an
increase in their
pay-cheques-a move which
had been endorsed earlier
by a meeting of Raj
Bhavan occupants. It was
thus decided to draft a
new bill incorporating
the salary-hikes proposed
for the Governors.
The
hikes had been
necessitated since the
Vice-President, who's the
presiding officer of the
Rajya Sabha, was getting
lesser salary than MPs,
who were getting Rs.
68,000 every month.
The
emoluments of former
Presidents' too were
doubled to Rs. six lakh
per year, while
additional facilities
were sanctioned for the
spouses of late
Presidents and
Vice-Presidents.
For
those bureaucrats who
score a Perfect Ten on
integrity index,
government's decision to
fix the President's
salary at Rs. 1 lakh a
month will come as a rude
jolt. This is because
babus who don't depend on
a "upri
(extras)" to
supplement their incomes,
the presidential salary
could be a bar for their
pay hikes in the 6th Pay
Commission.
The
salary of the cabinet
secretary, India's
highest-paid officer, can
surely not cross Rs. 1
lakh. This is because of
the conventions that
since government officers
serve on presidential
pleasure; their salary
cannot exceed that of the
occupant of Rashtrapati
Bhavan. So the cabinet
secretary, who now draws
a gross of Rs. 65,000,
can only expect a modest
raise. The top
bureaucrat's present
basic is Rs. 30,000. Add
to it, 50 per cent merged
dearness pay, 41 per cent
additional DA, Rs. 300
city compensatory
allowance, and the total
comes to a little under
Rs. 65,000.
Theoretically,
the cabinet secretary's
maximum possible revised
salary can now be Rs.
99,999 but that's the
limit. To begin with,
there would be no DA.
That's only a manner of
saying it. If we consider
a hefty 40 per cent hike,
the highest basic would
be around Rs. 90,000. But
40 per cent sounds
heavenly. A 30 per cent
hike would peg the
highest around Rs.
85,000, and at an earthly
25 per cent, it would be
just above Rs. 80,000. A
totally new regime of
perks and allowances is,
however, not ruled out.
Speculation has run wild
on the pay panel
recommending a dream hike
for officers and
employees, considering
how corporate salaries
have shot up. Some
guesstimates put the
maximum beyond Rs. 1
lakh.
A
fresh IAS recruit draws
an average Rs. 17,000
(gross) now. A 30 per
cent increase would take
his monthly to Rs.
22,000, while a 40 per
cent hike would peg it
around Rs. 24,000. Going
by tradition, the scale
for officers from other
services would be less
and the employees'
compensation even lower.
Money
is crucial but a
comparison with the
corporate sector is
unfair as the government
is not a profit making
firm. A more realistic
comparison would be with
the country's per capita
income as officials serve
the people. We should
keep in mind the
government's fiscal
position.
The
President's salary
revision has roughly
fixed the
"benchmark" for
what is in store. Now MPs
and MLAs on whom the
Centre and state
governments spent Rs. 9,
64,986 crore per year
will also demand a hike
in their salaries and
daily allowances. Over
and above these peoples'
representatives also
enjoy a lot of amenities,
which according to a
study conducted by Indian
Institute of Public
Finance comes to about
Rs. 4,00,000 crore. These
are princely sums if
compared with the per
capita income of the
country. The Lok Sabha is
run on a daily
expenditure of Rs. 1.25
crore. The remuneration
and other allowances of
the MPs and MLAs have
been increased by the
lawmakers themselves. The
calibre of most of the
MPs compared to the
earlier generation is of
very poor quality. Who
can forget the oratory
skills and deep knowledge
of MPs like Acharya
Kripalani, Shyama Prasad
Mukherjee, Jawaharlal
Nehru, Sardar Patel,
Bhupesh Gupta, Indrajit
Gupta, Jyotirmay Bosu,
Hiren Mukerjee, Madhu
Dandavate, V.K. Krishna
Menon, Madhu Limaye, Raj
Narain, H.V. Kamath, S.A.
Dange, Siddhartha Sankar
Ray and others.
Twelve
MPs were implicated for
accepting money from
private parties for
raising questions in
Parliament. Criminal
proceedings are pending
against 70 members of the
present Lok Sabha.
Today's MPs are more
concerned with their
respective states and
such matters as caste and
religion.
A
government employee is
eligible for pension
after completing
20-years' service and he
gets full pension after
34-years' continuous
service. But our MPs and
MLAs get pension only
after completing one term
as members of the House.
MPs
and MLAs, who do not
attend sessions, must be
brought to book. There
are many truant MPs and
MLAs who sign the
attendance register and
leave the House. The Lok
Sabha Speaker has
expressed his resentment
against truant members,
but could do nothing. He
called all-party meeting
to take action. The daily
allowance of such members
deserves to be cut.
In
the Rajya Sabha, few
members attend sessions,
but they get their
salaries and allowances.
The Upper House has no
power and it is a
"white
elephant" and is a
drain on the state
exchequer. It is
therefore suggested that
it be abolished. The
Legislative Councils have
been done away with in
nine states on the same
ground and the states
have faced no problems in
enacting laws. The Rajya
Sabha members are not
people's representatives;
vested interests are
represented in the House.
The
whole electoral and
monetary systems need to
be re-examined as time
and again the lawmakers
increase their salaries
and allowances
disproportionately to the
average income of the
common man whom they
represent. A public
debate on these
suggestions is
imperative. INAV
=
|
|
|
|
|
|
