Controversy over trees

  THE Tribune report “Centre’s notice to HP government” (March 28), pointing out that the Chandigarh-based regional office of the Union Environment Ministry has questioned the legality of the state government’s notification viz-a-viz “Khudro Darakhtan” transferring ownership rights of trees standing on private land to individual owners, comes as an avoidable damper. The Environment Ministry officials at Chandigarh, it appears, did not do any homework before shooting off their epistle to the state government for a “kill.”

It must be appreciated that no seedling — spontaneous or otherwise — ever develops into a full-fledged tree unless duly nursed/nourished and properly looked after. It is the owners of private land who have, over the years, painstakingly played this role and thus helped the so-called “Khudro Darakhtan” in the harsh struggle for survival.

By making the accursed revenue entry —”Khudro darakhtan malkiyat sarkar” — the wily alien rulers simply deprived the native people of their right. The surprising thing about the matter is that the anachronistic revenue entry continued to rule the roost for that long even in post-Independence India, to the chagrin of the affected people.

No wonder, the notification in question has been widely hailed as an exceedingly welcome step by the public at large in the affected districts of Kangra, Hamirpur and Una. The apprehension that over 35 lakh trees in the aforesaid districts might face axe seems absolutely ill-founded. The fond care with which the landowners treat the trees is to be seen to be believed. They go in for the felling of a tree only when they must. We hope the Environment Ministry officials would see reason and retrace their ill-advised step gracefully

TARA CHAND
Ambota (Una)

* * * *

Be yourself

This is not a good habit that instead of enjoying what we have, we should always think of what others have but we have not. Just as different flowers in a garden have different fragrance, similarly, different people have different talents in them.

All of us have several talents but there is generally one in which we excel others. Every aspirant of a happy life should find his or her own best talent and then develop it by study and training. It seems to be the only way to get satisfaction and happiness in life.

Make in writing, a list of your good points and occasionally go through it. Lest complacency stifles progress, or improvement, try to make efforts for further improvement. It is always preferable to improve on our good points rather than struggle against bad ones.

Self-respect is essential to happiness. No one should belittle himself by exaggerating his weak points nor under-rate himself by ignoring his strong points. Others can’t be expected to respect a man more than he does himself. A man lacking in self-respect is under-estimated and treated unjustly by others.

If a person allows himself to be treated like a doormat by others, he would feel upset by others’ negative opinion of him. That will simply go to prove that he is not a master of his own feelings and that he has handed over the control of his happiness or unhappiness to others. This shall have to be stopped. One should also not bother about other people’s opinion about oneself. The right attitude would be: “That’s how I am with all my plus and minus points — take me or leave me.”

Without being boastful, we can occasionally give ourselves a bit of praise. While it is good to encourage and appreciate others, it is also helpful if we don’t overlook the opportunity of praising ourselves for helping others in the hour of their need and for having a work done well. Someone has aptly said if we want to raise ourselves, we should occasionally praise ourselves.

And lastly, don’t try to imitate or copy others. It is not possible for a person to develop a talent which nature has denied to him. Be yourself and live in your own way. If somebody has something which you have not, you must also be having something which he has not. Beware, round the corner there may be someone who actually wishes to be like you!

A. K. SURI
Chandigarh

* * * *

Bhagwat episode

There seems no reason to differ with Mr Hari Jaisingh’s observation (“An avoidable controversy: armed forces are not plaything”, March 26) that in a democracy the people have the right to know about such vital national issues as the Bhagwat episode involving the nation’s security. At the same time, however, expression of subjective and biased views on such sensitive subjects by certain writers and political parties with vested interests need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Going beyond event-specific and personality-specific implications, there is more behind the crisis than meets the eye. First, it is the lack of harmonious and synergetic interaction between civil authorities and the armed forces headquarters. Second, there is an increasing tendency to question the validity of civilian control over military authority by the senior members of the armed forces. This constitutes a challenge to the very institutional foundations of our democracy and the Constitution. Third, bringing the judiciary to deal with questions of promotions and appointments within the armed forces also could affect both the discipline and professional competence of the armed forces. Fourth, there is an obvious deterioration in the quality and values governing man-management within the armed forces, where an increasing number of officers are questioning the authority of their superior.

The armed forces are the most important institution embodying the integrity of the nation and its commitment to discipline, secularism and unity of the country. This is apart from their being the final repository of the responsibility of safeguarding the country’s freedom and territorial integrity. We cannot let such an institution to fray and disintegrate, especially in the context of the dismal state in which our other institutions of governance are today.

The relationship between the services and civilians at the senior level is founded on responsibility and mutual respect. Problems arise when either side does not respect or refuses to understand the other’s views. For instance, in senior appointments the established practice has been that the concerned Chief recommends names out of government approved list, and if any proposal is found wanting the matter is resolved between him and the Defence Secretary. If still not settled, then at the level of the Minister. This approach based on mutual trust sans prestige issues is time-tested. Thus all contentious issues must be quietly settled without washing any dirty linen in public.

K. M. VASHISHT
Mansa