The task in Orissa
THE super cyclonic convulsion, particularly in the coastal areas of Orissa, calls for deep human understanding and adequate material response.

Bihar springs a surprise
ELECTORAL verdict has never been so even-handed as the one thrown up by Bihar on Tuesday. The four constituencies which had delayed polling because of floods went to three different parties and an independent who is often in and out of jail.

India wins series, but...
SACHIN TENDULKAR has begun his second stint as captain of the Indian cricket team on a winning note. But the 1-0 verdict in favour of India in the three-match series against New Zealand was certainly not the best advertisement for Test cricket.

BROADCASTING TODAY
Need for independent authority
by Prem Prakash
WITH a stable government finally in power in New Delhi, perhaps the time has come for a serious effort to clear up the mess on India’s broadcasting front. The country has a vast broadcast industry, yet there is no independent authority to guide and regulate it.

End of a British anachronism
by A.Balu
“YOU should study the peerage, Gerald... it is the best thing in fiction the English have ever done.” — Oscar Wilde. “There are some first class brains, some excellent spokesmen, some persistent questioners, some robust probers and so many plainly stupid reactionaries” — Lord Brigenshaw.

New President applies healing touch
by D.R. Goyal
INDONESIA’S new President Abdurrahman Wahid is the man to watch. The first elected occupant of that office Wahid seems set to make a far-reaching impact on the socio-political scene of the world, especially the developing countries.

When Edwina wept with “them”
by Satyindra Singh
IN a tiny service like the Navy, both officers and sailors keep on bumping into each other frequently and for extended periods. And the Navy, as Jawaharlal Nehru once described, was a mini-India from which the nation could learn many lessons.

Reckless renovation
by D.R. Sharma
THE mouldy walls and battered driveway of the 15-year-old house sadden me. I feel further depressed when the gate relates its own story of neglect and misuse. The pale grass in the front lawn points to the vicious weeds and pleads for attention. The Ashokas with broken spines send leaves flurrying all over the roof and the little patch skirting the corner house. What I see fills me with self-pity and helplessness.

75 Years Ago

November 4, 1924
The new policy
IN previous issues of this journal we have examined the new policy from the standpoints of justice and equity, of expediency and statesmanship and of constitutionalism, and have seen that it is equally indefensible from all these points of view.

The task in Orissa

THE super cyclonic convulsion, particularly in the coastal areas of Orissa, calls for deep human understanding and adequate material response. We have been asking for the acceptance of this nature’s wrath as unprecedented and unavoidable misfortune and its official description as a national calamity. When the first phase of devastation occurred, we underlined the meteorological warning that more catastrophic shocks were in store for West Bengal, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. Suggestions for caution and preparedness for disaster management did come in time. There were communication gaps or manifestations of tropical fatalism which made people—from fishermen to other coastal villagers—resign themselves to “His will”. More than one lakh lives have been lost. Thousands more are at risk. The waves are throwing back dead bodies and carcasses for the living to see. The Armed Forces have revived the Kargil spirit of meeting challenges thrust upon us. The Navy is bringing in generators for providing light and essential commodities for sustaining life. The Army is ferrying the marooned to safety. The Air Force is carrying in medical teams, besides dealing with hunger. Calamity is man’s real touchstone and “the perfect glass wherein we truly see and know ourselves”. Keeping this in view, the nation has to make a collective effort to deal with the crisis. Funds appear to be no problem despite the Central dithering in evolving the right way to provide assistance to the Orissa Government. Helpful NGOs, individuals and private organisations are collecting donations.

It appears that in the wake of epidemics in and around Cuttack, Balasore and Kendrapara, the misery is going to deepen. But Chief Minister Jyoti Basu has acted promptly and sent much help — including medical assistance — to the neighbourhood. Andhra’s leader Chandrababu Naidu has put a check on wasteful ceremonial expenditure and pomp or pageantry planned for Statehood Day; he is sending whatever has been saved to the cyclone-hit areas. Ovation is worth postponing. But a few points must be noted. The Union Government should give outright grants, and not loans, to Orissa. The aid should reach official agencies which know where the people have been hurt most. Coordinated relief work should be directed first at the priority areas and things must reach those for whom they are intended. The local administration knows where to do what if the wherewithal is available.

The mobilisation of the incoming health staff has to be well-planned. Orissa did not have even an effective chain of primary health-care centres during the past 10 years. Reports show a certain element of sluggishness in the evacuation operations. The state administration, with a full map of the tragedy with the details of space and time before it, ought to think futuristically and take such infrastructural and life-saving measures as can minimise the impact of disasters-in-waiting. Politicking in human misery must stop. The food riots have shown what hunger and anger can do to the desperate. VIPs should kindly keep themselves away from the scene; their activities don’t construct; they obstruct. Remember Samuel Johnson? “When any calamity has been suffered, the first thing to be remembered is how much has been escaped.” Lord Jagannath knows better but Giridhar (Gamang) has to be his vicar in this lightless Divali season.

Bihar springs a surprise

ELECTORAL verdict has never been so even-handed as the one thrown up by Bihar on Tuesday. The four constituencies which had delayed polling because of floods went to three different parties and an independent who is often in and out of jail. But both the BJP and the Laloo Prasad Yadav-led Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) do not figure in the winning list. However, the BJP’s ally, the Janata Dal (U), does and that is a source of consolation, though not a compensation for losing three seats it held in the dissolved Lok Sabha. The RJD had better luck; its allies, the Congress and the CPM, won one seat each. The defeat is a bitter disappointment for the saffron party, particularly after the spectacular showing earlier when it won 23 seats and its partner 17 to take an astonishing 40 seats out of the 50 where election was held. The inference is then obvious. As a senior BJP leader explained, the first round was won by Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee and this round was lost by Mr Kailashpati Mishra and Mr Sushil Kimar Modi, state leaders. It was not the party but the personality of Mr Vajpayee which brought in the votes. It is a painful admission even though made to explain away the loss of face, and it too throws up another inference. The BJP will have a tough time in the assembly election due early next year. Mr Vajpayee will not influence the electorate except as a campaigner and the verdict can in no way match the runaway success last month. An alternative analysis is more discomforting for the BJP. The state level leaders believe that the diesel price increase adversely affected the party prospects. This partly lessens their own responsibility for the dismal result but increases the party’s vulnerability. The BJP-led central government has promised many more belt-tightening measures and that can only alienate the voters further. There is another, not-so-hidden problem. Buoyed up by its solitary win and the blank card of the BJP, the JD(U) is sure to demand a disproportionately major share in the seat distribution. Its leadership is packed with many heavyweights and the election result has made them heavier still. A Karnataka-type situation will develop with tension arising between the allies and bickering at the level of the ordinary workers. As it is, the BJP is critical of the Samata and JD(U) leaders for not campaigning for any of its three candidates.

Needless to say, the winless RJD is more than happy. It is trying to pump up the morale of its workers with some elevating interpretations. It claims, and with a degree of plausibility, that the Yadav and Muslim vote has returned to the party fold after a brief desertion. This is evident from the Bhagalpur outcome. Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav first managed to persuade a rebel candidate to withdraw and then to campaign for the CPM. The RJD could have won the Khagaria seat if it had nominated somebody other than the wife of the principal accused in the fodder scam. The Congress candidate who had lost the 1998 election from Rajmahal by a wafer thin deficit of nine votes, romped home this time by a sizeable margin. The prognosis of the poll verdict is wholly favourable for the RJD-led alliance. For the present it is prudent to forget the brave words of the Congress that it will go alone, rather it will have no truck with the RJD. This macho posture does not mesh with its fragility as a party in Bihar. If the four-party alliance, including the two communist parties, fights the next elections, it should come up with an improved report card. That is for sure. Much help will come from the rival camp with so many claimants for the top political office and with a record of infighting and intrigue. Bihar has again burst on the national conscience as an arena of conflicting political credoes and clashing ambitions.

India wins series, but...

SACHIN TENDULKAR has begun his second stint as captain of the Indian cricket team on a winning note. But the 1-0 verdict in favour of India in the three-match series against New Zealand was certainly not the best advertisement for Test cricket. The blame for the most lacklustre series in recent memory should be shared by Tendulkar, the new coach [who was expected to make India play positive cricket], Kapil Dev, the new selection committee headed by the superstar of yesteryears Chandu Borde and the Board of Control for Cricket in India. On paper at least India is streets ahead of New Zealand in most departments of the game. Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid are without doubt the best batsmen in the world. There is no way any one of them can be dropped from an international XI. In Sadagopan Ramesh the team has found a consistent opener. If debutant Devang Gandhi can live up to the promise he showed in the three Tests he played against New Zealand, the selectors can afford the rare luxury of putting up the “no vacancy” sign for the opening slots and the middle order. Any team with so much of batting depth would have sent New Zealand on a leather hunt which India did not, except in the last Test in Ahmedabad. But the most worrying part is that India simply does not have the talent to bowl out even a mediocre team like New Zealand twice in the traditional form of the game. But what about Kanpur Test? Without meaning to take away credit from Anil Kumble for the match winning 10-wicket haul the Kanpur pitch was an insult to Test cricket. The irrepressible Geoffrey Boycott was not wrong in comparing it to the surface of the moon.

As it is, crowd interest in Test cricket is waning, and the poor quality of wickets plus the negative approach of Tendulkar as captain can only ensure its early demise. Kapil Dev was expected to help him become an aggressive leader! It may be premature to pass judgement on his leadership qualities, but there was little he did in the three-Test series to show that Tendulkar the captain is in the same league as Sachin the batsman. All that can be said at this stage is that the burden of leading the team has not affected his batting or else he would not have cracked the first double century of his career at Ahmedabad. But that is not a good enough reason to stop looking at Ganguly as potentially a more exciting captain. The limitations of the current bowling attack too need to be rectified. There is no doubt that Kumble, Javagal Srinath and Venkatesh Prasad are the best bowlers in India on current form. Yet the best Indian bowlers, unlike the batsmen, would not find a place in an international XI. The only way to overcoming the dearth of quality bowlers and all-rounders, which Pakistan produces with amazing consistency is through preparing hard and bouncy wickets and not the dust bowl which helped India beat New Zealand at Kanpur.

BROADCASTING TODAY
Need for independent authority
by Prem Prakash

WITH a stable government finally in power in New Delhi, perhaps the time has come for a serious effort to clear up the mess on India’s broadcasting front. The country has a vast broadcast industry, yet there is no independent authority to guide and regulate it. In the absence of any standards, what we have is a TV industry that offers sensual titillation and boring information programmes conducted by pundits of the print media.

The quality of entertainment on most Indian channels, including the publicly-owned Doordarshan, has reached an all-time low. The medium has become a promotional front for Bollywood, demonstrating the bankruptcy of creative thought. Even the quality of advertising is vulgar, prompting some to go to court to bring about restraint. It is indeed sad to see the public broadcaster having to follow the vulgar standards of entertainment set by satellite channels.

The government, before embarking on any hasty action, must redefine the role of public broadcasting in India. The debate about autonomy has gone on for far too long, and it is time to give thought to the objectives of public broadcasting. This author is one of the many who have always disapproved of sustaining the public broadcaster by advertising revenue, and the fears expressed when the practice was first introduced are all too evident today.

Perhaps the first step in moving forward should be to bury the concept of autonomy set out in the Prasar Bharati Act. The members of that board should have had the grace to resign long ago over the mess they have made so far, but since such resignation is not an Indian tradition, the time has come when they should be pushed out. The government could then do what the Supreme Court suggested in its historic judgement on broadcasting autonomy a few years ago and set up an independent broadcast authority to regulate the industry.

Following the practice in developed countries, the IBA should devise and apply modalities for licensing private channels, including the DTH (direct-to-home) platforms. It should also set the norms for programme schedules for these channels, including satellite channels carried by cable operators—a minimum standard mix that each should be expected to provide. In short, what we need desperately are the controls, both professional and governmental, of the kind that are in place in Britain and the USA.

It is also time to bring back the TV licence system. It is strange that while some private operators are already charging for their channels and others will soon be doing so under cover of a DTH platform, the public broadcaster is starved of resources simply because the post-office has failed to evolve a system for collecting licence fees. If the post-office in the UK can set up its own company to collect licence fees with great efficiency, why should the post-office in India throw up its hands at the prospect?

As for the licensing of private channels, these licences should be auctioned by the IBA, once it is formed. It is estimated that the revenue generated from this source alone could be between Rs 2500 crore and Rs 3000 crore or more per year. A considerable proportion of this revenue should go to the public broadcaster, after meeting the IBA’s running costs, which should be sufficient to support a sizeable operation, not just to auction the licences but also to monitor the performance to the private channels to ensure that they observe the set standards in programme schedules. Technical quality norms would also have to be set and monitored by the IBA, with top quality engineers overseeing the operation. At present, the technical quality demonstrated by most channels is lamentable.

The ruling of the Supreme Court that India’s air waves were public property and not the monopoly of the state broadcaster, left many in politics and the bureaucracy smarting under its far-reaching consequences. Mr Jaipal Reddy, Information Minister under the United Front government, cleverly outflanked the Supreme Court by introducing a half-baked Prasar Bharati, which only made the situation murkier.

The ruling of the Supreme Court should have helped to usher in a huge new industry, properly regulated. Instead, all we have seen are satellite channels originated from abroad — though, thankfully, some are now “up-linked” from India. Other than the state broadcaster, Doordarshan, there is no terrestrial broadcaster in the country. India, with its multiplicity of linguistic and ethnic groups, could well support 300 local terrestrial TV stations, on the most conservative reckoning. Some think that the number could well go up to 600 or 800, considering that the USA has more than a thousand local Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) stations, in addition to all its commercial, terrestrial and satellite channels.

Thus a vast opportunity for a new industry awaits if the government or the IBA licences local terrestrial TV stations — an opportunity opening the door to large-scale employment for the educated unemployed in our districts. Such wide growth would be the answer to the narrow vision of the lobbyists of today trying to sell one DTH platform or another as though that were all that constituted a “TV explosion.”

Apart from offering immense possibilities for creativity, broadcasting, more than any other medium, can propel the country towards the information age, bringing transparency to public life — and it would be able to do better if it reached the district level through local terrestrial stations. It is high time we looked at the broadcasting policy in its totality, and not just dealt with the immediate problems of licensing satellite channels or DTH hopefuls.

The national values of India today are not threatened as much by foreign channels as by uncontrolled vulgarity, amounting almost to soft pornography, being displayed by India’s own private channels. This is not a plea for censorship, but a demand for a regulatory mechanism that sets standards and calls for accountability.

There is hardly any programming on Indian channels, including the public ones, on subjects such as history, science, technology, geography, economics, consumer protection, international relations, community, social issues and so on. People are being forced to watch foreign channels for such programmes and are even paying for them. The private operators find these subjects beyond their thinking; for them, TV programming begins and ends in Bollywood. Add to that a bit of news, and show the faces of some journalists (in fact, used as lobbyists) and you have the programme mix of any Indian channel.

Public media should lead the way and become the watchdog in protecting people’s interests. The talk of autonomy has no meaning if it only brings vulgarity and the airing of views of a chosen few. It is amazing to see the plethora of politics aired by most channels just because they are unable to look beyond the limited vision of a few well entrenched and articulate “pen wallahs”. Nor is there any sign of capable and talented people who could change that depressing picture, despite the large number of training institutes that exist in the country.

India is not an easy country to bring about any change. The forces of status quo are too well entrenched in almost every walk of life. However, given the political will, it is not going to be too difficult a task to bring about the required change.

The need is for a principled policy framework within which the industry could grow unhampered.

Those who oppose the dominance of the TV scene by the public broadcaster forget the India’s people are too shrewd to be taken in by any propaganda. If that had not been so the British would still be here for they in their time controlled the radio network and the newsreels. Yet Mahatma Gandhi was able to carry his message to the people and lead the greatest mass movement known in human history. He was denied radio or any other means of mass communication. All he had was his frail voice at a time when the public address system too was of a very poor quality.

The opportunity offered to the present government by virtue of its stability may never come back. Let it not be forgotten that the Janata government in its desire to hold on to the official media, threw that opportunity away when it handled the report of the Verghese Committee. The TV Programme Producers Guild, of which this author was the President at the time, had clearly warned the nation of the oncoming invasion by the satellite TV. It had sought the creation of an Independent Broadcast Authority. The government today is in a happier position because of the historic judgement of the Supreme Court directing it to set up an independent authority.

In short, the government should address itself to the mess that exists in Indian broadcasting today, scrap Prasar Bharati, establish an independent authority, set norms for TV programming, and decide on the role for public broadcasting. There is need to start afresh with an open mind, a mind that looks at India playing a major role globally. For that, India would also need its own international channel so that its voice may be heard abroad. Only a dominant public broadcaster can provide such a voice.

There is need to look at the whole issue with a positive outlook. Any policy aimed at scuttling the growth of private and foreign channels is doomed to failure, as technology knows no bounds. Foreign channels cannot pose any threat to Indian programmes that offer quality. The need is to foster that quality by providing a strong and powerful foundation to an industry that is currently being allowed to grow in a haphazard manner, threatening the values of India’s ancient culture.

End of a British anachronism
by A.Balu

“YOU should study the peerage, Gerald... it is the best thing in fiction the English have ever done.” — Oscar Wilde.

“There are some first class brains, some excellent spokesmen, some persistent questioners, some robust probers and so many plainly stupid reactionaries” — Lord Brigenshaw.

“A severe though not unfriendly critic of our institution said that the cure for admiring the House of Lords was to go and look at them.” — Bagheot

The spectre of an uncertain future had been haunting the House of Lords — an institution that is usually ignored as an ineffective are harmless appendage to the Palace of Westminster — ever since the British Labour Party came to power. The other day their lordships (the hereditary ones) voted themselves out, as the House approved by 221 to 81 votes a Bill brought by the Blair government. The legislation will now go to the House of Commons for finishing touches.

In the general election in Britain two years ago that swept Labour under the leadership of Mr Tony Blair to power with a thumping majority, the party’s manifesto had promised to end the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. But the government could not immediately implement the promise apparently because there were more pressing issues to be addressed immediately.

The Labour Party’s go-slow policy in this regard probably stemmed from the fact that support of the over 1200-strong House of Lords with a built-in Conservative majority was essential for Prime Minister Blair to carry forward his Cabinet’s proposal for a referendum on the question of devolution. There had been occasions in the past, as , for instance, during the Labour government’s tenure under Prime Minister James Callaghan, when the Lords had shown their fang rather menacingly to the House of Commons, seeking to thwart in the process Labour’s legislative programme. Once in 1968 the Lords had defied the Commons by refusing to pass an order for renewing sanctions against Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). On another occasion, they had sought to amend a Bill by which the Labour government postponed the redistribution of parliamentary seats.

For their part, the Lords had rejected labour charges that they were indulging in negative political sabotage motivated by anti-government feelings and contended that they were simply discharging their responsibility of a second chamber ensuring that the government did not ram down the throat of parliament ill-conceived and hastily drafted pieces of legislation.

The advent of Mrs Margaret Thatcher and her Conservative government in 1979 removed any immediate threat to the longevity of hereditary peers. Since then, for nearly two decades, the Lords had gone on merrily with more government nominees, including two leading Indian businessmen in the United Kingdom, Mr Swraj Paul and Mr Bagri (now Lords), being admitted to the British upper chamber, rightly described by many as an anachronism.

The Labour Party B, especially that of the left-wing’s allergy to the House of Lords found a bizarre expression not very long ago. On November 18, 1991 when the Queen was delivering the traditional Opening of Parliament Speech in the House of Lords, the Commons was to quote British journalist and author Paul Routledge, “the scene of some extraordinary agitprop theatre”. In the presence of a few fellow labour MPs Mr Dennis Skinner sat on the Speaker’s chair (certainly more audacious than the spectacle of our MPs rushing to the well of the House) and proposed a motion abolishing the House of Lords and the monarchy. Routledge reported that laughter echoed around the virtually empty chamber.

Later, when the MPs returned for routine business, Mr Skinner chose to inform the Speaker, Ms Betty Boothroyd, that they took part in a little exercise in “abolishing” the House of Lords and the monarchy, but unfortunately there were not enough MPs in the chamber to carry the motion. The Speaker gave Mr Skinner a severe rebuke for indulging in “buffoonery” and “horseplay”.

Suggestions for the reform of the House of Lords have ranged from outright and complete abolition of a chamber of parliament based either on inheritance or nomination to the creation of an elected senate or a partly elected chamber with the right of vote to non-elected members. The Conservatives had been opposed to any change in the composition and duty of the House of Lords but they could not do much to stop the reform since they were in a hopeless minority in the present parliament. The Labour had the support of the Liberal Democratic Party whose election manifesto in 1997 had proposed changing the House of Lords into a predominantly elected body.

Britain is so steeped in tradition that the chances of the abolition of the Lords are as good as those for the abolition of the monarchy. Short of that, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the upper chamber of parliament has been put to an end. It is akin to abolishing a kind of caste system. The opposition Conservative Party leader in the House of Lords. Lord Strathclyde, bitterly commented: “The Prime Minister has taken a knife and scored a giant gash across the face of history.”

The Lords had the Hobson’s choice. If the Bill had been rejected, Mr Blair could have tabled it again in the Labour-dominated House of Commons in the next parliamentary session beginning November 17. The Lords are barred from rejecting twice a Bill passed by the House of Common. As the leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Jay noted, “It is goodbye to the hereditary Peers.”

Reckless renovation
by D.R. Sharma

THE mouldy walls and battered driveway of the 15-year-old house sadden me. I feel further depressed when the gate relates its own story of neglect and misuse. The pale grass in the front lawn points to the vicious weeds and pleads for attention. The Ashokas with broken spines send leaves flurrying all over the roof and the little patch skirting the corner house. What I see fills me with self-pity and helplessness.

Just then walks in a young friend — perhaps the noblest of mankind — to cushion my despair. When he notices the structure in front, he asks me not to crack up but wait.

The next morning he arrives with four warriors who, he says, would fight my battle. The carpenter, the most intrepid of the lot, examines the garage shutter and warns me against its use at my age. “It’ll wreck your spine if you keep pulling and pushing it,” he remarks. I agree and let him replace that lethal shutter with a wide door.

The mason narrows his eyes and says: “I can convert this doleful dwelling into a sparkling bungalow if you let me do things my way.” And his way, he elaborates, is first to plaster the outer walls and then carve out shapely bricks which would impart an astonishing look to the decrepit building.

He barely finishes when steps in the floor-fixer who straightaway starts kicking the floor. “It’s all hollow underneath,” he says. “I would advise the re-laying of the principal floors and replacing the mildewy passage with Kota stone. Just then I recalled having read somewhere that the pathway to salvation was paved with Kota stone.

The last to counsel me is the painter who assures me that if I accept his terms he would make the house sparkle.

Just as I’m listening to these veterans I hear a muttering from behind. “Where shall we go?” gently enquire Shakespeare and Shaw, Sarte and Salinger, Wordsworth and Whitman. “You’ll have a spacious and separate room above the garage,” I say. The answer pleases the carpenter, the mason, the floor-fixer and the painter.

“What about me who washes all your dirt?” asks the Videocon automatic washing machine which didn’t want to droop in the bathroom. The lady at my elbow announces that we would get a special room built at the back and call it a utility-cum-multi-purpose dorm — for laundering, ironing and stacking the precious vinyl bags.

Just as I’m calming my nerves comes a cry from the kitchen —cry from the cabinets with swollen looks and broken knobs. That uplifts the carpenter who promises to repair everything and, in addition, provides channels for the sticky drawers.

Well, the work is over — like our savings and secret funds. The little angel in human form, who got it accomplished, tells me that with the amount spent on mere renovation we could have built a modest new house. But, then, how could we neglect our spines, our library, our washing machine and the kitchen cabinets? It seems we have quelled the mutiny at home with a Pyrrhic victory.

New President applies healing touch
by D.R. Goyal

INDONESIA’S new President Abdurrahman Wahid is the man to watch. The first elected occupant of that office Wahid seems set to make a far-reaching impact on the socio-political scene of the world, especially the developing countries. If past record and moves in the first few days in office are any indication, he possesses the audacity and determination of Kemal Ataturk and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan necessary for a turn around in the thinking of state, religion and their mutual relationship which are crucial for coping with the radical transformation that human society is undergoing.

However, much will depend on the measure of success that his new regime achieves, for the problems that Indonesia faces today are stupendous. The independence of Christian-majority East Timor has left a trail of resentment in the overwhelmingly Muslim population of Indonesia and its armed forces, besides unleashing fissiparous tendencies in non-Javanese territories. The outgoing Soeharto-Habibie regime has left behind an economy in deep crisis with mounting foreign debts, rising inflation and growing unemployment.

It has to be seen whether the first democratically elected government can tackle those problems to the satisfaction of the people. Indonesian people have not experienced freedom and democracy during the last half century of post-colonial administration. In the first 27 years it was a Guided Democracy under Ahmad Soekarno which was characterised by an uneasy balance between the political and military wings of the government, the former dominated by a strong pro-Chinese Communist Party (PCI) and the latter under strong influence of the Islamists.

This balance was disturbed in 1964-65 when the PCI tried to establish its hegemony and was defeated by the army. Soekarno, the balance force, survived but only till 1967 when General Soeharto took over. The concept of Guided Democracy was replaced by that of the new order in which the army had an upper hand and the regime had a stronger Islamic orientation.

Abdurrahman Wahid has been a strong advocate of respect for human rights and democratic governance. In 1991, he founded Forum Democracy, an NGO fighting against religious sectarianism. He strongly criticised Soeharto for showing preference to Muslims and Islam. Ramsay Magsaysay Award was conferred upon him in 1993 for his defence of human rights in Indonesia.

Descendant of a prominent religious family and head of the most powerful Islamic organisation, Nahdatul Ulama, he is opposed to preferential treatment by government of any religion. As a staunch advocate of the concept of Panchsila he considers sense of satisfaction and security in minority communities absolutely necessary to maintain national unity and social peace. In 1992, there were anti-religious riots in East Java in which churches were burnt down and a priest was killed. Wahid condemned the perpetrators of violence, even though some of them belonged to his own organisation Nahdatul Ulama, and publicly apologised for the violence.

Wahid has faced criticism from a section of his own organisation has also rivals outside who have aired doubts about his Islamic credentials for upholding that a non-Muslim can be acceptable as President of Indonesia. He has also rejected the antediluvian concepts like Darul Islam and Darul Harb and opposed those who plead for declaring Indonesia an Islamic state.

This liberal attitude is reflected in his political opinions as well. For example, he extended support even to secessionist demands of ethnic groups which had been alienated by army’s atrocities and tyrannical centralised administration dominated by the Javanese, the largest ethnic group. Just a few days before being elected President he had joined demonstrators demanding a referendum in the oil-rich province, Aceh. Immediately after his election, the demand of East Timor for independence was conceded.

Interestingly Wahid traces his liberal attitude in religion and politics to fundamental tenets of Islam. Rejecting the interpretations of fundamentalists like Maududi he pleads for dynamic approach to understanding of the Koran and Shariah in the light of knowledge and thoughts prevailing in contemporary age. According to him, Islam prospered because of advocacy of universal values of human brotherhood, peace, equality and justice which he finds compatible with the declaration of the United Nations.

The fact that with such unorthodox views he has emerged as the most acceptable leader indicates that Indonesian people at large support his views. He owes his popularity partly to the role that his family and his organisation has played in the history of Indonesia. A century ago his grandfather Hasyim Asy’ari founded the madrassa movement called pesantran. These Islamic schools became centres of resistance to colonialist rulers. Nahdatul Ulama is the off-shoot of this movement. It has the distinction of consistently supporting the freedom movement and the secular idea of Panchsila. This role has won for the organisation and its leadership high prestige specially because they have kept religion out of political contention.

Wahid makes a distinction between civil society and state. Role of religion, he asserts, should be confined to fostering values of peace, social harmony and justice in society without discrimination on the basis of religious or ethnic distinction. It should not interfere in affairs of state.

On assuming power he has taken steps which are likely to provide the launching pad for transformation of the Indonesian state from a tyranny into a participatory democracy responsive to the wishes of the people. The most significant is the attempt at reconciliation with rivals. He has helped the election to vice-presidency of Megawati Sukarnoputri who was his rival in presidential election. Towards members of the outgoing regime including many of the former ministers in his cabinet, also he has adopted a benign attitude. Only an attempt has been made to bring army under political control by replacing army chief as the Defence Minister by a civilian.

Investigation has been started against the corruption of discredited President Soeharto but Wahid pleads for tempering justice with mercy. Rather than taking any drastic action against him he would let him live in peace provided he disgorges and returns the wealth looted from the nation. The aim is not to take revenge but to send a message of integrity and transparency. These steps can be helpful in developing broad consensus for unleashing a process of development. If he succeeds in harnessing the energies of the nation to productive activity there can be hope of a peaceful future for the Indonesian people and Wahid will earn the authority to work for democratic changes in the Islamic world. — IPA Service

When Edwina wept with “them”
by Satyindra Singh

IN a tiny service like the Navy, both officers and sailors keep on bumping into each other frequently and for extended periods. And the Navy, as Jawaharlal Nehru once described, was a mini-India from which the nation could learn many lessons.

Rusi Gandhi (later Vice Admiral and Governor of H.P. on retirement) and I have been shipmates many, many times going back to the tumultuous period of 1946-47 when we were both young Lieutenants and shared a room in South Block. — I as a staff officer to the then British Commander in Chief of the Royal Indian Navy and Rusi as his Flag Lieutenant (the Naval term for ADC). And even on retirement our bonds and ties are as abiding as ever.

He was recently in the capital and while exchanging reminiscences, he recalled a very human story with some gripping details. When Lord Mountbatten arrived in undivided India in March 1947 with the ‘mandate’ to tear the nation into two, Rusi shifted berth to Rashtrapati Bhavan as Naval ADC to the Viceroy, but we met often. I continued in South Block to also see the division of the Navy — ships and personnel both. It was all very sad. But here goes the human story.

After Independence, Lady Edwina Mountbatten got very involved with the refugees coming from Pakistan and we used to visit refugee camps galore. Once we even visited a refugee camp in Pakistan.

The normal drill was that we would take off in the Viceregal Dakota at about 6.00 am from Palam and land on kutcha airstrips all over the Punjab with little fanfare and just a phone call to the local DC to meet us.

Once we went in early September to visit an all-Sardar (Sikh) camp in Amritsar. When we landed, due to a mix-up, no one was there to meet us. The two ADCs on duty were Captain Jim Scott of the Grenadier and myself. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was with us, and one security gunman. Allow me to explain the security staff of those days for the Viceroy and Vicereine.

When we went by car there was only a lone police Sergeant on a pilot motorcycle and one spare car following. The lone gunman was dressed as a chaprasi with a small 0.38 revolver in his pocket only!

All those ex-wartime airstrips that we landed on were unmanned. When we landed at Amritsar there was no one to meet us. I saw a villager on cycle and beckoned him to lend me his cycle. I got on it and as I started, a military jeep appeared with a British Lt Col. There appeared another jeep and out stepped the Governor, Sir Chandulal Trivedi, ICS; especially selected for Punjab by Lord Mountbatten as he was supposed to be a very tough and no-nonsense man. Trivedi always, from the first thing in the morning, had a large cigar in his mouth and a big Sola Topee.

Trivedi got out and we had a chat. Edwina said she had come to see/inspect the Sardar camp. The conversation went something like this:

EM: Sir Chandulal, Amrit and I have come to see the camps.

Sir C.T.: Your Excellency, yesterday I went to inspect the camp and the Sardars were wild and spat on me. They are very agitated, excited and violent. I would not advise you to go there.

EM: Now turns to Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and says “Amrit, what do you think? I think we should go and see for ourselves.” (Poor Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, very demure in a saree and the pullav over her head and a sunshade umbrella over her politely agreed). Edwina Mountbatten then turns around and says “Sir Chandulal I think we should go.”

Sir C.T. Your Excellency, I strongly advise that you do not go. You have no idea how wild they are with the upheaval and upset with our best arrangements for them. Please do not go.

EM: Sir Chandulal, that is precisely what we have to see. “The arrangements you have made and how we in Delhi and the Red Cross can help you.” (The Lt Col now butts in to say. “Madam, I entirely agree with the Governor — I cannot guarantee your safety)”

Edwina was in khaki uniform with three rows of medals. Now looks straight at the Lt. Col who has only one and a hal roas and says “Colonel, I think we should now get going” and steps into the jeep. I jump in at the back. I am also dressed in a khaki bush shirt, sleeves rolled up just like the Army ADC.

Long before we reached the refugee camp you could smell the stink. At the edge of the camp, both jeeps with Sir Chandulal Trivedi and all of us start walking up to the assembled refugees. About fifty yards from the assembled persons, all hell breaks loose and a whole bunch of about fifty wild Sardars, with hair loose, no turbans, beards loose and flowing, started to run towards us. Scott and I at once got to Edwina’s side and Scott signalled the gunman to come closer.

Normally, ADC never carried arms of any sorts, but at the time of independence there were riots in Delhi and we (Col and I) were ordered to carry loaded pistols, a dangerous thing to do of 0.32 calibre for protection. I put my hand in my pocket and put the safety catch to off. Scott looked at me and patted his pocket. All of us saw much danger looming ahead.

Edwina seeing this mass of humanity rushing towards her, rushed forward to greet them — we saw danger and she saw love. We were all very worried and I put my hand in my right hand pocket and got slight comfort from the warm steel of the pistol.

About 10 yards away the mob stopped, fell to the ground, banged their heads on the mud and wept copiously and began to beseech Edwina! We were stunned into silence but with moist eyes. Edwina kept rushing to them and the Sardars got up and hugged her and she them. And these huge, wild grown up men wept, beat their chests and requested for help. Edwina wept with them. Somehow the mob felt that here was a person, genuine to the core who felt, really for them, and most concerned for them and true love for human beings. Not vote banks as of now.

On return, the boss of the Red Cross, Secretaries Health and Rehabilitation, the then Director-General Armed Forces Medical Services were all summoned for a meeting that very evening and orders passed for more tents, water bowsers, medicines etc. Promises fulfilled and not as of now!

75 YEARS AGO

November 4, 1924
The new policy

IN previous issues of this journal we have examined the new policy from the standpoints of justice and equity, of expediency and statesmanship and of constitutionalism, and have seen that it is equally indefensible from all these points of view.

In our leading article today we have considered the purely legal aspects of this policy and have tried to show that the new Ordinance is as drastic a piece of lawless law as any measure forged by the Government in the pre-Reform days. But the Ordinance, as we have said, is not the only measure in the present case on which the government relies for the purpose of repression.

An even more potent measure is the use of Regulation III of 1818, whose retention was recommended by the Repressive Laws Committee, which included both the then Home Member and then the Law Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, on the specific ground that it was necessary “to retain power over the movements of certain persons in order to protect the inflammable frontiers of India from internal commotion, for the due maintenance of alliances formed by the British government with foreign powers, the preservation of tranquillity in the territories of the Native Princes entitled to protection, and for the security of British Dominions from foreign hostility.”