P A G E
Friday, January 29, 1999
today's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Friday, January 29, 1999 |
| weather n
spotlight today's calendar |
||
|
Towards
nuclear sanyas
ELECTORAL
REFORMS
Fiscal
management out |
 |
Need
for two-track policy
Pour
and pally pawpaw
Labour
Kisan Party’s Decision |
||||||||
 |
|
Towards nuclear sanyas DEFENCE Minister George Fernandes has come full circle. After incessantly talking about making nuclear bombs and fitting the various missiles with nuclear warheads, he is now on to nuclear renunciation. Clever that he is, he seeks to attain this sanyas in the most idealistic way: to have the bomb and pledge not to use it. India and China have agreed that they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons against each other. What this means is that the two would not initiate a nuclear war, but if the other side launches one, they retain the right to retaliate in kind. Mr Fernandes wants to build on this and convert other nuclear powers to this new faith of nuclear ahimsa. But there is a small problem. Pakistan has rejected India’s offer of no-first-use of nuclear weapons; what is worse, it termed the whole idea as hare-brained and illogical. In a perfect example of bad-neighbourliness, it poured scorn on the offer, dubbing it naive if not a dangerous illusion. So, for the Defence Minister it is one win and one loss. He looks at the success and feels encouraged and inspired. He would do well to take the Pakistani position a bit more seriously. The military establishment in that country has not forgotten the 1971 rout and would like to be doubly on guard. So the military officers take more than usual interest in the nuclear debate in this country. Many self-appointed security experts have asked the BJP-led government to build a nuclear arsenal of something like 350 bombs, at which level it would be a credible nuclear force. There has also been the proposal to disperse the bomb-fitted delivery system so that India can absorb the initial attack and yet retaliate in an energetic manner, the socalled deterrence theory. For Indians all this is part of the ongoing debate, but seen from across the border, it would appear that a concrete plan is emerging and this country is bent on becoming the second biggest nuclear power in Asia after China. No doubt, Pakistan looks at India’s offer on no-first-use of nuclear weapons as a ruse to lull it into complacency even while it goes on establishing a nuclear stockpile. What is more, acceptance of the offer will make it vulnerable to further American pressure to accept nuclear restraint. China’s stand poses a
dilemma for this country. The major reason for conducting
the Pokhran blasts last May was the security threat from
the northern neighbour. And the man who made the maximum
noise was none other than Mr Fernandes. China may still
pose a threat in terms of conventional force, but it
cannot be neutralised with nuclear might, not after the
nuclear renunciation. As for Pakistan, this country
enjoys superiority in conventional force and, anyway, its
lack of depth is a big handicap. And given
Pakistan’s precarious economic situation, chances of
an allout war for any length of time seem remote. Mr
Fernandes may yet gain something from the suggestion he
is canvassing. If he were to take it up seriously, he
will be talking to the established nuclear powers on an
equal footing, not as an aspirant nuclear power trying to
gatecrash into the exclusive club! |
The untold Andhra story IF the Federation of Andhra Pradesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s (FAPCCI’s) exposure of the much-publicised industrial revolution being brought about in Andhra Pradesh has grains of truth, it is a matter of shame not only for the person targeted — Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu — but also for the entire mass media. It was the primary duty of journalists to present before the public the untold part of the “Andhra development story”, but, unfortunately, they got carried away by the innovative ways of Mr Naidu to promote the growth of the information technology industry in his state, and failed in their primary duty. The hidden side has been uncovered by FAPCCI, an organisation representing 8000 business establishments and a rival to the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), considered close to the Chief Minister. As it appears, the 13-page note, highlighting the “hollowness” of the claims of Mr Naidu, has been released after much deliberation, and provides an uncomfortable picture of Andhra’s industrial scene which has been in the news more than any other state for some time because of its development schemes as projected by its “CEO”, the Chief Minister. The FAPCCI note says that but for the area of information technology, there is no change in the industrial map of the state. The two major factors which greatly influence the decisions of investors are a trouble-free project clearance system and the adequate availability of power. Mr Naidu has so far done very little on both fronts, despite his invitations to NRI and other industrialists to invest in Andhra, where they are assured of an “industry-friendly atmosphere”. His much-talked about single-window clearance system for industries is yet to become a reality. Investors have to knock at a number of doors if they want to set up a unit in Andhra, wasting much of their time and money and suffering harassment in the process. Power availability
continues to remain a major area of concern in Andhra
Pradesh. There is no end to frequent and long power cuts.
To cap it all, power has become costlier following a
recent decision of the government. Mr Naidu has been
promising to the investors that he would remove all the
hurdles at the labour front by enacting new laws. But it
has been all talk and no action. Even with regard to
preventing bandhs through legislation, after the apex
court upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision
declaring bandhs as unconstitutional and against the law,
he has been only beating about the bush. Of course, he is
an excellent marketing man and has perfected the
technique of projecting his case. But this is not enough.
A businessman is a practical person. If he is really the
Best Business Person of the Year, the recognition he has
already got, he must prove it by implementing the
promises he has been making off and on, or by providing
the infrastructure necessary for enabling Andhra to
emerge as the development model of the 21st century. Even
his most-favoured child, the information technology
industry, cannot show healthy growth in the absence of
sufficient power supply. Mr Naidu must realise that he
has to quickly move beyond securing a hefty loan from the
World Bank and establishing a world class business school
and an institute of information technology. His image,
even if it is managed, is at stake. |
ELECTORAL REFORMS
HOW serious are we about electoral reforms? The Chief Election Commissioner, Mr M. S. Gill, has been talking about them. He has even made specific suggestions to improve the quality of our democratic functioning. A number of leaders have been talking about poll reforms. But as in other areas of national life, we seem to lack the requisite seriousness and determination to initiate reforms. True, the question of electoral reforms is not simple. It is highly complex, which explains why no meaningful reforms have been carried out so far. Not enough thought has been given to follow up the recommendations of the Law Commission to effect drastic changes in the electoral laws which seek to stop defections, curb money power, introduce strict auditing of accounts of political parties and shut out people with criminal records. At a recent national seminar in New Delhi, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has, however, done well to support the recommendations of the Law Commission. He favours summary disqualification of defecting MPs and state legislators. The anti-defection Act has obviously failed. He has also opposed frequent elections at the Centre and in the states. Such seminars are welcome. But it is not for want of public support that the matter has failed to receive the attention it deserves. It is mainly because political parties and some politicians prefer to maintain the present anarchy so that they can manage to be in power. This must be denied. Of course, any change in the laws can bring about improvement, but if a meaningful electoral system is to be introduced, we must go for a two-party system based on clear-cut ideologies and programmes. Fiftyone years, of course, is not a long time in the history of a nation. But it is long enough to make a judgement on what kind of a system we must have to ensure a measure of efficiency and good governance. It is time to make that judgement. The Indian National Congress was an umbrella organisation, representing various interest groups. Its goal was the freedom of the country. Everyone was then expected to make sacrifices for the motherland. There were no loaves and fishes for distribution. And yet some Muslims and Hindus began to think that they must set up their own organisation to protect their interests. Thus came into being the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League. This finally led to the partition of the country. The communists, and later the socialists too, broke away from the Congress. This was because of their ideological differences. But the communists represented only the working class interests and in no way constituted a representative group of the nation like the Congress was. The same could be said of the socialists, though they represented a broad segment of the polity. Once India became free and loaves and fishes were there to be had, there was a stampede to be part of the Congress. All sorts of groups joined the Congress with an avowed interest of exacting their share of the spoils. The party welcomed them because of the compulsions of electoral politics. But it could not satisfy the aspirations of every interest group. In due course, regional grievances led to the emergence of regional parties. But what did the greatest damage to the polity and the party system was the assertion of smaller interest groups. There were also the outcrop of the Mandal revolution like Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav, Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav and others. They represented certain castes, not even the so-called "other backward castes". These leaders have played a larger than life role because they come from UP and Bihar, the two states which had played a decisive role in the past in deciding who controlled Delhi. These new political formations have come to be called "personality-based" parties. In most cases these splinter formations have a few seats in Parliament. They have no firm ideology or programme. All that they want is power and their entire thrust in politics is based on populism. But the logic of power has gone against them, particularly at the Centre. These splinter parties have no chance to come to power at the Centre on their own. They have to be part of a larger arrangement. For example, led by the Congress or the BJP. But they can never be honest in their dealings with the larger parties, because they fear them. If they (larger parties) grow stronger, any accretion of strength will always be at the expense of these splinter parties. So, to make it good for themselves they, in a way, acquired some sort of a "nuisance value" in Parliament and in the political arena in order to wrest concessions. Thus we have had governments led by the Congress and supported by these splinter parties. We have had governments led by the splinter groups and supported by the Congress. Now we have a BJP-led coalition which has been the most unstable arrangement. There is hardly any debate in Parliament and little legislative work, which is the main purpose of the parliamentary system. Instead, the government often resorts to ordinances. All these raise a basic question: Is coalition politics workable? Can it produce stable governments? Can it think of and work for the larger issues of a nation’s life, like its security, its economic future, etc? What then is the solution? An ideal proposition will be a two-party system. This would mean that at the national level these splinter parties should either cease to exist or work out an integrated common programme with the mainstream parties, that is, with either the Congress or the BJP. What is necessary is that such an arrangement must be transparent. This is not a tall order. It is a necessity. An effort is now on to form a third front. This is not a cure. Going by the recent experience, a third front may only perpetuate the disorder the United Front went through. It will make sure that no party will get a clear majority, which will compel the creation of unstable coalitions with the same result. The UF was a good federal experiment, but we know what happened. It degenerated into personality politics. And those personalities are still around, each one wanting to occupy the Prime Minister’s chair. In any case, its life will depend on the Congress support. But even here the UF or what is left of it is in two minds about seeking the support of the Congress. For them a strong Congress is an anathema. In the final analysis, there is no better alternative to the two-party system. If the splinter groups fail to fall in line, there is only one way out: the Congress and the BJP must come to an understanding to work out a two-party system by strictly following democratic procedures. In the alternative, we must have legislation that the Lok Sabha’s life should be five years and that there will be no mid-term poll. Only then can we end the present anarchy in our life. But along with these
reforms, there is need to enforce democratic principles
in the working of political parties. The Congress and the
BJP are not the best examples of democratic parties. The
Election Commission can be given more teeth to ensure
that democratic principles are followed by political
parties. |
Fiscal management out of control FINANCES of state governments, deteriorating from year to year, have now reached a critical stage, with many of them on the verge of insolvency. Increasingly larger transfers of resources from the Centre through tax devaluation and plan assistance, loans and grants, notwithstanding, the states are unable to contain the growth of their non-developmental expenditure, mainly pay revisions and subsidies. Gross fiscal deficits of all states total around Rs 60,000 crore in 1998-99, which saw a 30 per cent rise in revenue deficit to over Rs 25,000 crore. Recent pay revisions — an ongoing process — are estimated to have contributed to a rise in administrative services by over Rs 14,000 crore, according to budget estimates. The Karnataka employees’ agitation in December forced the state government to incur an additional expenditure of Rs 755 crore, taking the total salary bill to Rs 5,655 crore or more than 50 per cent of revenue receipts. Weak governments at the Centre have been lax in enforcing discipline on the states, and proper safeguards are not built into transfers to ensure that the resources transferred are utilised efficiently for the intended purposes. Centre-state fiscal relations thus far have been viewed purely in terms of how more and more resources could be made available to the states by the Centre. Neither the tax devaluation formulae have been devised by Finance Commissions nor have the allocations for development by the Planning Commission helped in making the states conscious of their responsibilities in making the most efficient use of the scarce resources for productive ends. The agreed devolution formula of the Tenth Finance Commission by which 29 per cent of all the Centre’s tax revenues would be shared with the states — requiring a constitutional amendment — has hardly begun to be implemented when the Eleventh Finance Commission, chaired by Prof A.M. Khusro, has begun its task of outlining a new framework of fiscal transfers to the states. Uttar Pradesh, which has traditionally dominated national politics and yet remains relatively the most backward state in terms of economic and social development, provides the classic example of how political survival for a party is sought to be achieved at the expense of the tax-payer. An unwieldy 94-member Council of Ministers, creation of districts and proliferation of bureaucracy show scant regard for fiscal prudence and accountability. Great concern has been voiced over the financial condition of the states like Punjab and Maharashtra. Despite the write-off by the Centre of Rs 8,500 crore of loans — a generosity which former Prime Minister I.K. Gujral extended — for anti-terrorism operations, Punjab is in the grip of financial crisis. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s efforts to set the state’s finances on the mend since 1995 have had only partial success. He has, however, managed to secure a 540 million dollar World Bank loan for an economic restructuring project which is aimed at bringing the fiscal situation to manageable levels over the next three to four years through structural reforms. In the election year, the government has begun to relax its grip and the Finance Minister, Mr P. Ashok Gajapathi Raju, admits that the financial position is “uncomfortable”. The World Bank assistance is, however, linked to progress in meeting fiscal deficit reduction targets the government had accepted. Fourteen major states account for over Rs 51,000 crore out of the combined fiscal deficit of Rs 59,277 crore in 1998-99 (B.E.). It is unlikely that in the current economic situation in the country, coupled with expectations from the forthcoming Union Budget and the 13 Finance Commission’s scheme of fiscal transfers, state governments would make bold efforts to prune the budgetary deficits and meet the plan expenditure targets. To enforce fiscal discipline, the Reserve Bank has suggested there should be a statutory limit on debt, and states should rely more on borrowings from the market as banks would no longer be captive investors in state government paper in view of the reduced statutory liquidity ratio. The creation of a
consolidated sinking fund will provide a buffer to state
governments in meeting their future repayment schedules
with some level of comfort. The aggregate public debt of
state governments has risen over the last two years to 21
per cent of GDP with an increasing share of internal debt
(market borrowings, etc) and a rise in the interest
burden. — IPA |
Pour
and pally pawpaw THREE types of persons are my friends — one that love me, one that hate me and one that are different but indifferent to me. Those who love me teach me tenderness; those who hate me, teach me caution; those who are indifferent to me, teach me self-reliance. In the third category comes the quaint papaya tree which, until recently, stood stately right in front of my study, on the periphery of the lush lawns. The unseemly unseasonal rains mowed it down last month. It valiantly withstood the onslaughts of the rainstorm but betrayed sure signs of enervation in the aftermath. With the help of the cook and the gardener, I persuaded the tilted tree trunk to have heart and get well soon. Somehow, our collective care and concern did bear fruit and the pally pawpaw seemed to be bouncing back to health. There was nip in the air. Suddenly the weather became cloudy and it began to rain torrentially, forcing everyone indoors. Rains were fast and fickle. Sensing something amiss, I came out of my study only to find the ten-footer lying diagonally across the lawns like a slain soldier. Our frantic efforts to restore it from horizontal to vertical proved futile. The demise was a personal loss to me. An epitome of esteem, it was always on guard. Absolutely on its own, it never needed any care. A good samaritan, it lived and died, giving and forgiving. Ceremoniously bedecked with a green crown and lavishly laden with fruity medallions, my pally papaya passed for a sedate sentinel who had weathered many a storm over the past 11 years. A masterpiece of nature, this symbol of bounty and plenty had endeared itself to everyone in the household and the neighbourhood. Thanks to its medicinal properties and delicious dishes it lent itself to, papaya enjoyed eminence amongst all the age groups. It was with a heavy heart that we bade farewell to the papaya tree, sure enough that the void thus created could not be filled in the foreseeable future. Knowing not when I got lost in a reverie, I glimpsed Lord Krishna holding aloft the Govardhan Parvat to save the inhabitants of Vrindavan from the rainful wrath of Lord Indra who let loose his heavenly reservoir. Next morning, dreamy eyed,
as I thumbed through the morning newspaper, a headline
shrieked, “Three more farmers end lives,”
Gripped by the fear of their inability to repay the
mounting debts in the wake of the crop failure caused by
the unseasonal rains, these frustrated farmers had
decided to walk out of the world. My heart went out to
the hapless families whose predicament was more poignant
than mine. |
Need for two-track policy on
Tibet TIBET is in the news again, this time not because of George Fernandes, but because of Tibetan youths, who broke into the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi to protest against the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Ever since the BJP came to power, Sino-Indian relations have been on the slide, mainly because, either by design or impulse, the BJP is less mute compared to the Congress. But it had no hand in what the Tibetan youths did. The Dalai Lama has always been an advocate of non-violence. He is moderate and liberal. He has even scaled down his demand for independence to genuine autonomy. It is China which is provoking violence. But who is encouraging the Tibetan youths? In one word: America! Or, its propaganda on human rights. But we thought that the Americans and Chinese are strategic partners today. True, but Washington is also a foe in disguise. The US foreign policy is like a Janus, with two faces. We in India are familiar with these two faces for a long time. The American and Chinese people hold the destiny of the world in their hands. This is how Richard Nixon pompously heralded the US-China condominium in 1971 during his visit to China. That policy has not changed in all these years. Clinton is an advocate of the condominium. Or, shall we say he is a super salesman of US business interests? America’s pro-China business lobby is building up China as the second pole in the new bipolar world. It is resolved to engage China in Asia’s security. This is to ensure US presence in Asia and to share the security burden with China. What is more, it prevents China from turning against the USA. Clinton has added an attraction: he has made South Asia a sphere of Chinese influence. For this, India administered a slap on his face by exploding the nuclear bombs. It told him that India is no push-over. But there is something spurious about all these. Can America really promote China as a hegemon? It cannot. China is a country with a mind of its own and is unlikely to serve US interests for long. But the two have come together because it suits their immediate interests and objectives. China believes that it can prosper better in collusion with the USA than as an antagonist. As for the USA, it needs China to promote its interests in Asia. But there is a “but”: it cannot allow China to become a challenge to its own supremacy. This is where America’s two-track policy comes into play: one track to promote mutual economic interests, the other track to support the Dalai Lama, the independence of Taiwan, and the ethnic unification of the Mongols — all a clear warning to China about the limits of its freedom. Official America has no love for the Tibetans, but it suits the US establishment to give an impression that the USA supports the independence movement of the Tibetans. However, there is a real fascination for Tibet among the Americans at present. Tibetans have welcomed this upsurge of interest. No doubt, the Dalai Lama is now reconciled to genuine autonomy, but the Tibetan youth will have nothing but independence. The Dalai Lama is getting old, and Beijing can wait. And Beijing forgets nothing. That is its tradition. In the meantime, Beijing wants the Dalai Lama to recognise China’s sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan as a part of China. This would finish him as a political figure. Beijing does nothing without far-reaching calculations. The USA says it is committed to a one-China policy. That means it cannot support the independence of Tibet, Taiwan or Inner Mongolia. But this is not its objective at present. Chinese military presence in Tibet suits Washington’s India policy. Support to Taiwan keeps Beijing in constant anxiety. And the Mongol policy worries both China and Russia. Kissinger was the great inventor of “linkages”. It continues to flourish under Clinton. India, Russia and China are not ignorant of these linkages or the “balance of power” policy. That is why Primakov came out with his triangular strategy. America’s “Mongol game” can have dangerous consequences. The Mongols were the most restless people in history. If they come together, nothing can stop them from becoming a major force in Asia. Outer Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, Buriyatia and Kalmykia together can become a formidable state. And they are all Buddhists of the Lamaist school, with a soft corner for Tibetans. The Mongols suffer from greater psychic hurt from Chinese occupation and dominance than perhaps the Tibetans or Uighurs. Evidently the pan-Mangol movement is gaining momentum. That is why India must project the Buddhist angle in its foreign policy. Any unification of the Mongol race can boost the movement for Tibetan independence, as also of all other minority groups in China. China looks upon this Mongol movement with great apprehension, although it has reduced the Mongols in Inner Mongolia to a small minority (10 per cent) by colonising the territory with Han people. The Republic of Mongolia (Outer Mongolia) fears that the relentless quest of China for lebensraum will one day threaten it too. China claims it is not an expansionist power. This is an utter travesty of the truth. At one time the Great Wall was the boundary of China. Today China is five times the size of what it was when the wall was being built. In the past 50 years, China has expanded into Tibet and Inner Mongolia (that is demographically). And now it is busy colonising north Mynmar. It is said that Mandalay is already an outpost of China and is connected to Yunan, a Chinese province, by a major highway. And yet China is not an expansionist power?! Both the Tibetans and Mongols look upon India as a friendly power. In culture, religion and civilisation, they are closer to India than to China. Mongols want a strategic partnership with India. Alas, we have no Tibet policy. As for a Mongol policy, we have not heard of one. Holding the Tibetans in Dharamsala is no policy. China continues to occupy large territories of India and it has claimed 90,000 sq km of Arunachal. In short, China has not accepted the status quo in the Himalayas. And it considers Nepal as its own sphere of influence. There had been reports of China’s intention to divert the waters of the Brahmaputra to the Gobi desert. (Of the 2900 km of the river, half is in China and Tibet.) Let us hope that China will not resort to such arbitrary steps. But it has a bad record. Under the 1954 India-China Accord (Panchsheel agreement) India wrote off all its inherited rights in Tibet in the hope that China would reciprocate by accepting the status quo in the Himalayas. But China did nothing of the sort. It advanced new claims on India as soon as the Accord was signed. But India continued to believe that China was a friendly neighbour. It reminds one of the Munich Pact. While all the concessions India made were written down in that Accord, it contained nothing on what India expected of China. Once China established its legal claim to Tibet, it was a different China that Nehru had to deal with. The 1962 Chinese aggression woke us up from our reverie. Nehru admitted: “It was a little naive to think that the trouble with China was essentially due to a dispute over some territory. It had some deeper reasons.” Some of us have been able to fathom these “deeper reasons.” So, what is the policy
that India should pursue? Why, the same policy that
America is pursuing. We must have a two-track policy. We
must promote our mutual economic interests, but do
everything that is within our competence to prevent China
from being a threat to our security. To put it bluntly,
we must promote the autonomy of Tibet, the independence
of Taiwan and the ethnic movement of the Mongols. In the
meantime, India must hold on to the Tibet card. |
The
Kenya Surrender THE Labour Kisan Party’s Central Committee, Madras, will organise a mass demonstration against the Kenya decision on January 30. It proposes retaliation by workers and boycott of British goods. It will communicate resolutions to the British Labour, especially the Parliamentary Party, to bring pressure upon the British ruling classes for recognising the Kenya workers’ equality with the whites, lest the boycott resolved upon should damage the British Workers’ Party. The party further recommends the removal of India’s suppressed class disabilities. It will also suggest similar retaliation by workers against Indian high-caste men’s treatment of the untouchables. The party appeals to all
the workers to join the demonstration and requests the
Provincial Committees to hold similar protest meetings. |
 |
 |
| Nation
| Punjab | Haryana | Himachal Pradesh | Jammu & Kashmir | | Chandigarh | Business | Sport | | Mailbag | Spotlight | World | 50 years of Independence | Weather | | Search | Subscribe | Archive | Suggestion | Home | E-mail | |
