Major education scam
IT is difficult to find the right words for describing the state of affairs in some of the respected centres of higher learning in the country. How should one react to the report of suicide by an Assistant Registrar of Nagpur University for his alleged role in, perhaps, the biggest scam involving a reputed university?

Ill-timed Mufti move
THE State in Jammu and Kashmir has, over the troubled years, shown unparalleled resilience and unflinching loyalty to Kashmiriyat of which politics is a major component.

The Dal dramatics
KARNATAKA Chief Minister J.H. Patel of the Janata Dal is always a man to watch. Today, everyone is watching him as he unfolds his hurriedly thought-out plan to reap the maximum advantage of his merger with the Lok Shakthi and also to insulate himself from any damage from the rival Janata Dal group.

Yeltsin’s inner circle ‘Parallel government’ in Russia
by M. L. Madhu
RECENTLY a big part of the Russian print and electronic media has been highly vocal and critical of the role of what is known as The Family in the country’s affairs. The term “The Family” refers to the very close and influential inner circle of President Yeltsin.

N. Ireland: elusive search for autonomy
by Derek Ingram
MR Tony Blair recently missed the most important formal event to take place in Britain since becoming Prime Minister two years ago. As the newly-elected members of the Scottish Parliament trooped into the Assembly Hall of Edinburgh for its opening, some wearing the traditional good luck symbol of white heather and others a white rose to mark their republicanism, Mr Blair was away across the water.

Time to make clean air, water basic right
by Tavleen Singh
LAST month, before the rains came and hopefully cleaned the air, an American environmental institute noticed that there was a haze of air pollution over the Indian Ocean that was approximately the size of the USA — 3.8 million square miles. Mr Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a Director at the Scripps Centre for Clouds, Chemistry and Climate, was quoted as saying: “It appeared as if the whole Indian sub-continent was smothered by a mountain of pollution”.

Ministers’ spirited reply to Sebastian’s hardtalk
by Amita Malik
TIM Sebastian of the BBC has the reputation of throwing people completely off balance in his much-watched and usually admired programme “Hardtalk”. He is a confirmed badgerer, has a good research team and he was at his badgering worst when interviewing Jaswant Singh and George Fernandes, both ministers, in the aftermath of Kargil.

Third preference speaking
by D.K. Mukerjee
EMBARRASSMENT, like all emotions, is very powerful and no man or woman is immune to it. It is a feeling which makes you believe that you have failed suddenly with no time to adjust or prepare.

75 Years Ago

Public petitions regarding Bills
IT may also be pointed out that some time ago the Government adopted the recommendations of the Committee on public petitions and it is now open to the public, if they wish to do so, to present a petition to the Legislature through a member of the Assembly, representing their opinion about a Bill under discussion.

Major education scam

IT is difficult to find the right words for describing the state of affairs in some of the respected centres of higher learning in the country. How should one react to the report of suicide by an Assistant Registrar of Nagpur University for his alleged role in, perhaps, the biggest scam involving a reputed university? What should one say to the report of the arrest of the Vice-Chancellor of L.N. Mishra Mithila University in Bihar for allegedly patronising a multi-crore rupee business of selling fake B Ed degrees? And what about the Minister of State for Education in Bihar who went underground when the police came looking for him for answers which only he could give? These scams should not merely be taken as proof of the spread of the canker of corruption to all aspects of human activity. These scandals should also alert the academic community and educationists to the need for having a hard look at the entire system and the infrastructure of higher learning for setting the house in order before it collapses under the weight of rampant corruption. The racket involving Nagpur University — the alma mater of former Vice-President M. Hidayatullah, former Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao, former Chief Justice of India M. C. Chhagla and countless other eminent Indians — came to light when some embassies sought verification of the authenticity of the degrees submitted by students seeking admission in foreign universities. The local Press broke the news about the degrees being fake. The Maharashtra Government, under pressure, ordered a vigilance enquiry. Anti-Corruption Bureau officials caught an Assistant Registrar handing over a bribe of Rs 7 lakh to a police officer as “protection money”. When they opened the closet, as it were, they found it packed with all types of skeletons. University officials, who were initially asked to investigate the bogus marksheet and degrees racket were themselves found to be involved in the scam. The Nagpur University Vice-Chancellor and Pro Vice-Chancellor have resigned and regular appointments for the two posts cannot be made before the conclusion of the Assembly elections.

Similar stories about the goings-on in most universities in Bihar do not cause as much concern in educational circles as the Nagpur University scam for obvious reasons. It is not only the Vice-Chancellor of Mithila University whose role is under investigation. At least 30 colleges affiliated to four universities have been found to be involved in the lucrative business of selling B Ed degrees for hefty amounts. The Vice-Chancellor of B. N. Mandal University too has been named by the police. The Minister of State has reportedly accused his senior Minister of trying to pass the buck for the acts of corruption patronised by him. The University Grants Commission issues from time to time a list of bogus universities and centres of higher learning for protecting students from being exploited by the racketeers. But what is the remedy for protecting students from paying for the acts of corruption of officials of recognised, and even respected, centres of higher learning? The value of the geology degree of Panjab University became suspect after the fossil scam became international news. Most Indian degrees are not accepted by foreign centres of learning and higher education without proper verification. Such scandals as have come to light add to the woes of students armed with genuine degrees and diplomas. The answer to the problem was given by an eminent educationist, Dr K.G. Sayyadain, nearly 30 years ago when he said that higher education was not the birth right of everyone. In simple terms, degrees need to be delinked from jobs for discouraging students from obtaining bogus degrees for the limited purpose of getting employment. The next step should be to scale down drastically the number of universities and other centres of higher learning or turn them into polytechnics or institutions of professional specialisation. The country needs more schools than colleges or universities. And schools should have teachers who have received professional training and not bought bogus B.Ed degrees.

Ill-timed Mufti move

THE State in Jammu and Kashmir has, over the troubled years, shown unparalleled resilience and unflinching loyalty to Kashmiriyat of which politics is a major component. The Congress has been in the seat of power for long years. Even in its foulest mood, the Abdullah family has preserved its pro-people and anti-terrorist stance. Dr Farooq Abdullah's temperamentality needs no illustration. The quality of his leadership has justified familial inheritance. He does not have political links with the Congress anymore but his emotional attachment to the Nehru-Sheikh Abdullah subterranean equation has lingered on. His ways are closer to his father's traditional convictions. Mr Ghulam Nabi Azad is the bridge between him and the Congress. When one looks closely at the resignation of Ms Mehbooba Mufti from the Congress Legislature Party's leadership as well as from the party, two things become clear. The father-daughter team has upset the political balance in the state at a very inappropriate and difficult time. And Dr Farooq Abdullah and Mr Ghulam Nabi Azad have forged a workable relationship, which goes much beyond the latter being given a chance to sit in the Rajya Sabha.

Mufti Mohammed Sayeed did bring the Anantnag seat to the emaciated Congress in the dissolved Lok Sabha. But his hostility to the elected government has gone beyond all limits. He had left (or ditched) Rajiv Gandhi to join the V.P. Singh government. The Rubaiyya episode was the mother of many unethical compromises. Mehbooba showed imagination and realism initially but her legacy and inability to get on well with other party leaders of consequence could not make her two-year term as an Assembly party leader memorable. Now she is blaming the Congress for most of the ills of Jammu and Kashmir's socio-political set-up, forgetting that her call for "unconditional talks" with the pro-Pakistan lobby and terrorist organisations is not a helpful move when the nation is facing a virtual war from across the Line of Control. Internal political unity, aimed at isolating and eliminating the terrorists — whose killer ranks are swelling fast —, is essential. "Unconditional talks" with the saboteurs' organisations are neither sensible nor strategically proper in the wake of six massacres in quick succession. In fact, the Muftis should have strengthened the Congress and shown solidarity with the State. They should have prescribed the harshest possible punishment for the pro-Pakistan terrorist groups. The Congress has historic association with Jammu and Kashmir and all misadventures by the belligerent neighbour in the past have been sternly dealt with by its governments (from the early days of freedom to the 1971 war). The Muftis' duty at the moment is to form an anti-terrorist front in cooperation with the National Conference and other positive entities. It is time for Dr Farooq Abdullah to plead for a provincial consensus. The Azads and the Muftis should bury their hatchet and help in winning the war — proxy as well as regular — in the heart and at the LoC of Jammu and Kashmir. The attempts to end ISI-led terrorist activities through dialogue have dismally failed over the past eight years or so. Any move to trust the terrorists or spend time in holding negotiations with them will prove futile. The language of wisdom in the bleeding state must not be inconsistent with the idiom of weaponry and the diction of vigilance.

The Dal dramatics

KARNATAKA Chief Minister J.H. Patel of the Janata Dal is always a man to watch. Today, everyone is watching him as he unfolds his hurriedly thought-out plan to reap the maximum advantage of his merger with the Lok Shakthi and also to insulate himself from any damage from the rival Janata Dal group. So on Thursday, within hours of returning from the first battlefield in Delhi, he unleashed two crucial moves. He sacked eight dissident Ministers and got the Assembly dissolved. The second decision ensures that the Deve Gowda group with a strength of about 25 legislators will not have an opportunity to raise a ruckus in the State Assembly. Mr Patel faced no imminent danger of being voted out. But a no-confidence motion would bring out the real strength of the two factions and anything more than 25 members in the rival camp will be a morale-sapping spectacle. Such an exercise will also embarrass the BJP by forcing it to take a stand when it has not decided what to do. The Assembly dissolution, thus, serves as a vaccine to give Mr Patel immunity against any premature destabilisation when he would be bargaining for an honourable share of seats. Newspaper reports indicate that the BJP may allot about 130 seats directly to the Lok Shakthi with the condition that the Janata Dal aspirants are accommodated in its share. Incidentally, there are 224 seats in the Assembly. If the Lok Shakthi-Janata Dal combination does as well as the BJP, then the struggle for leadership will be wide open.

Mr Patel's troubles are many and some insurmountable. One, the Lok Shakthi, which has formally merged with his Dal, is already making unfriendly noises. District-level leaders are demanding a large number of seats, larger than what would suit Mr Patel. Two, Mr Ramakrishna Hegde, the Lok Shakthi leader, has clearly emerged as the chief ministerial candidate, relegating Mr Patel to the second or even third position. The BJP, on its part, has formally severed its electoral arrangement with Mr Hegde's party in view of the changed political equations. Nor has the saffron party relented in its opposition to doing business with Mr Patel on an equal footing. So far the wranglings within the proposed National Democratic Alliance are not loud enough or life-threatening. But it is the very initial stage of election preparation. The Congress sees a renewed promise in the JD split and disarray in the opposition camp. If the Congress can rein in its temptation to embrace the Deve Gowda faction, Karnataka will witness a straight contest between two alliances led by recognised national parties. This seems to be about the only beneficial outcome of the chopping and sifting within the once formidable Janata Dal.

Yeltsin’s inner circle ‘Parallel government’ in Russia
by M. L. Madhu

RECENTLY a big part of the Russian print and electronic media has been highly vocal and critical of the role of what is known as The Family in the country’s affairs. The term “The Family” refers to the very close and influential inner circle of President Yeltsin. It includes Mr Yeltsin’s daughter Tatyana Dyachenko, his official adviser and image maker, his current chief of administration Alexander Voloshin, his former chief of staff Valentin Yumashev and Sibneft oil company’s executive Roman Abramovich. Some oligarch-controlled media persons have named this inner circle as “Gang of Four”. In the past also Mr Yeltsin’s administration has been playing an important role in the state affairs and has been considered a “parallel government” but the present inner circle of Mr Yeltsin’s administration is being described as immensely powerful.

This inner circle or The Family came in the limelight and under scrutiny at the time of Mr Primakov’s departure as Prime Minister and the appointment of Mr Sergei Stepashin as his successor and, especially, when the new Cabinet was being formed. It is generally believed that this group of four and business tycoon Boris Berezovsky, who is also very close to The Family, played decisive role in ousting Primakov. It is reported that there was a lot of thinking and rethinking on the question of appointing of Mr Primakov’s successor. The Family was more favourably inclined towards Mr Nikolay Aksyonenko, who was the Railway Minister in Mr Primakov’s government, and who being a man of tycoon Berezovsky and Abramovich is considered as The Family’s own man.

In fact, reports suggest that Mr Yeltsin had informed the Speaker of the State Duma that he was going to propose Mr Nikolay Aksyonenko as Prime Minister, but later decided in favour of Mr Sergei Stepashin. This sudden change led to an ironic remark from the Speaker. He said, “Our President quite often changes his mind and as such we will have two Prime Ministers.” Analysts point out that this sudden change in favour of Mr Stepashin was the result of Mr Anatoly Chubais’s canvassing. Mr Chubais is also quite close to Mr Yeltsin and The Family. He was able to convince Mr Yeltsin’s daughter, Ms Tatyana Dyachenko, that “Mr Stepashin is also our man, quite loyal and faithful” to Mr Yeltsin, and his influence in security services would be of great value in difficult moments. Although Mr Stepashin was appointed Prime Minister, The Family’s favourite, Mr Aksyonenko, was appointed the First Deputy Prime Minister simultaneously with a lot of power to counterbalance him.

The Family is believed to have played a dominating role in the formation of the new Cabinet. Mr Stepashin could not have the team of his own choice. For instance, he wanted to include Mr Alexander Zhukov, Chairman of Duma’s Finance Committee, as his second first deputy and man in charge of economic matters. But The Family did not approve of this proposal, and his name was dropped. Political observers opine that Mr Stepashin’s next choice was the then Finance Minister, Mr Mikhail Zadornov, as the second First Deputy Prime Minister and the man in charge of economic and financial affairs, but he was also not approved by The Family. In fact, his name was announced but later on dropped. A disgusted Mr Zadornov resigned as Finance Minister, though later on Mr Stepashin succeeded in bringing him back as a minister, with a much modest role of dealing with Russia’s international credit problems.

Thus the tug of war on the formation of the Cabinet continued for a number of days and at times it appeared that Mr Stepashin’s patience will run out and he will resign his post. But before this could happen and Russia again could plunge in a new political crisis, a compromise Cabinet was formed. Obviously, The Family’s own people dominate in it. Many analysts have posed this question: Why is The Family so keen to appoint its own people in all the key positions, especially in the ministries which are the main sources of state revenues? Their answer is a simple one. They explain that President Yeltsin’s term of office will be over in less than a year’s time. He and his inner circle, The Family, are not only keen to ensure their future safety and security but also to continue to play an important role in state affairs.

This could be possible if they succeeded in getting a good number of their own candidates elected in the Duma, — the Lower House of Parliament, and, if possible for the post of President also. For this purpose, big financial resources will be required, and The Family’s own persons can be of great help, especially, when according to financial experts, the Russian tax control system has many loopholes for revenue diversions. The Russian media has even mentioned such sources. They include the Railway Ministry, Fuel and Energy Ministries, oil exporting pipelines, gas monopoly organisation gazprom and Russian weapon exporting organisation Rosvooruzheniye. Customs department and State Pension Fund are also the part of the list.

Critics and opponents of Mr Yeltsin and The Family emphasise the view that they are worried about the likelihood of the undesirable results of the coming Duma and Presidential elections. If the communists come to power and if Mr Gennady Zyuganov becomes the President, then what will be their fate? Anything can happen in this case. All sorts of charges, false or genuine, can be levelled against them. Therefore, to avoid any such possibility, Mr Yeltsin and, particularly, his active inner circle, will use not only the financial resources to have the election results in their favour but also resort to some other methods.

Elections might be postponed for a long time or emergency be imposed on some pretext. For instance, it is said that a provocative situation might be created by the removal or an attempt to remove Lenin’s body from the masoleum in the Red Square and bury it in some grave. It will definitely be opposed by the communists and the older generation. It can lead to widespread demonstrations, protest marches and violent incidents, government crackdown, the imposition of a ban on communist and left parties, the declaration of an emergency and cancellation or long-term postponement of elections can be the expected consequences of such a situation.

Critics of the designs of The Family don’t rule out another manoeuvre. They think that efforts will be made to form a union and federation of Russia and Belarus. If this happens, then a new constitution will be framed in such a way that Mr Yeltsin continues to remain the President of the new federation.

Such views, doubts and fears on both sides might prove speculative in the long run, but one thing is clear that in the coming one year many expected and unexpected political cards will be played by the interested parties. On Mr Yeltsin’s side, the main player will be his inner circle — The Family.

(The writer is based in Moscow)

N. Ireland: elusive search for autonomy
by Derek Ingram

MR Tony Blair recently missed the most important formal event to take place in Britain since becoming Prime Minister two years ago. As the newly-elected members of the Scottish Parliament trooped into the Assembly Hall of Edinburgh for its opening, some wearing the traditional good luck symbol of white heather and others a white rose to mark their republicanism, Mr Blair was away across the water. He was struggling with Irish leaders through marathon negotiations at Stormont Castle, in the Northern Irish capital of Belfast, trying for the glittering prize of peace in Ireland.

Everything had gone so well in the creation of the first Scottish Parliament for 300 years. But in the province of Northern Ireland it was, as ever, a different story.

The Scots had taken, without rancour or even a hint of bloodshed, what many fear may turn out to be the first step to separate statehood. At the opening, the newly-created Scottish First Minister Donald Dewar, invoked movingly the great names of the Scottish past — writer Walter Scott, poet Robert Burns, King Robert Bruce, hero of the 14th century Scottish war of independence, and nationalist William Wallace, who was hanged, drawn and quartered by the English.

A poem was read, a song was sung, and the Scottish Crown was carried by a duke whose ancestor had plotted to abolish Scotland’s last parliament.

Outside the atmosphere was festive. The only jarring note came from Irish republicans protesting about the scene in Ireland where a peace deal agreed earlier this year was threatening to fall apart over the issue of disarming Irish militant groups.

At the end of the same day Mr Blair claimed there had been “historic seismic shifts in the political landscape in Northern Ireland”

He had laboured mightily, devoting almost a week of his time, but the terrible tragedy of Northern Ireland appeared to be nowhere near ended. Yet five weeks earlier, in Wales, with even less fuss than in Scotland, his government had created an assembly where a parliament had last met in 1495. The opening took place with barely a hint of emotion.

There is little doubt that the face of Britain is being dramatically changed by the Blair government in a devolution of power that makes many uncomfortable. The Conservative Party, which first supported the idea of devolution for Scotland, then opposed it and now has had to embrace it again, believes Britain is breaking up.

Out there somewhere is what is now being called middle England. Its inhabitants, the English, are complaining that they are the only people without a parliament and an identity. Yet many English are indifferent to the idea of devolution. Much as some of them might like a parliament for their own region —whether Cumbria, Wessex or Mercia — nothing like that is likely to happen. In a typical compromise Britain is going to be halfway between a federation and a centralised state.

But why are the Irish, unlike the Scots, the Welsh and the English, proving so difficult to please? After all, historically the Scots also had a turbulent and violent relationship with the English and the Irish. Wars of independence in the 13-14th centuries were followed by fighting for another 200 years.

Colonialism began in 1171 when King Henry-II of England invaded Ireland. Settlers were poured in and English courtiers became great landowners there. The English spent centuries trying to subjugate the Irish, involving repeated atrocities.

When the Catholic Mary-I became Queen of England in 1553, a policy of what is now called ethnic cleansing was introduced, with new settlers — first Catholics and then Protestants —dispossessing the native Gaelic people of two-thirds of their land.

The result of this policy, which continued for two centuries, led the Gaelic leadership to seek support from the papacy while the English encouraged even more Scottish Protestants to settle in Ireland.

Many chapters of unrest were to follow, with the struggle for an independent Ireland ending in the birth of the Irish Free State in 1921 excluding the six counties of Northern Ireland. The roots of dispute deepened with the years.

This is much more complicated and tangled history than that of Scotland. Religion had become a main ingredient from the 16th century and the majority Protestant community continues to discriminate against Catholics in many walks of life.

Yet peace may at last be achievable and Mr Tony Blair was right to stay negotiating in Belfast. He would have hoped the warring leaders of Northern Ireland were listening hard when First Minister Dewar movingly told the new Scottish MPs that they were “at a new stage of the journey begun long ago and which has no end.” — GEMINI

(The author founded Gemini News Service in 1968 and was its editor for over 25 years.)

Third preference speaking
by D.K. Mukerjee

EMBARRASSMENT, like all emotions, is very powerful and no man or woman is immune to it. It is a feeling which makes you believe that you have failed suddenly with no time to adjust or prepare.

I grew up in an atmosphere where good manners always played a dominant role in the moulding of character. A slight noise while sipping a cup of tea, failing to say thank you to a person who has directed you to the correct house, folding of pages of library books and many other things would invite reprimand.

I had never let my newly acquired company or environment interfere with my education. Even while in government service, I would rise slightly from my seat in office whenever a female entered irrespective of her status, or ask for “autographs” from my boss on letters meant to be signed by him. However, a small incident embarrassed me for a long time as I had failed in my manners. This made me miserable for a long time till I learnt that the best way to deal with it was to tell yourself that the incident did not show any defect in your character and it was nothing more than a brief lapse. Let time pass and one day you may even look back at it fondly and have a hearty laugh.

The telephone communication in Chandigarh had not made rapid strides then. The exchange had not switched over to the Electro-Digital System and the old strowger System was in vogue. In order to get the correct number, one had to have the nerve and verve to keep oneself busy with the dial. It was during those days that I was required to pass on an important and immediate decision on the telephone to a certain organisation. My fingers had started aching after repeated struggle with the dial when the bell ultimately rang and the gentleman at the other end informed me that the person I needed was on leave. Without taking the risk of a disconnection, I enquired if the second in command could talk to me. But I was told that he too was not readily available. Since it was an immediate message I asked for Mr D, another senior executive, and the same gentleman at the other end promptly replied on his soft and silken voice, “Third preference speaking”. I profusely apologised for the lapse and quickly transferred the message. This deeply hurt me and I felt that I was still picking up pebbles in this vast sea of manners.

I got an opportunity to pay back in the same coin. The telephone at my residence would ring up at odd and unearthly hours and the person ringing would ask for Miss Mehak (the correct name has been withheld for security reasons!). Since there was no such person I would reply in the negative. This continued for some time till I exhausted my patience. The last time the bell rang and he enquired about my credentials, I disguised my voice slightly and said that it was Mrs Mukerjee. He shot back saying it appeared to be a male voice to which I promptly said that I had recently changed my sex. We started laughing and tears were rolling down my cheeks.

I never suffered from embarrassment thereafter. I had followed the advice: “Pepper your life with humour and light-heartedness. Dump your ego in the garbage. See what you get. There will be an agonising squeeze in your stomach and tears will be rolling down your cheeks”.

Time to make clean air, water
basic right

by Tavleen Singh

LAST month, before the rains came and hopefully cleaned the air, an American environmental institute noticed that there was a haze of air pollution over the Indian Ocean that was approximately the size of the USA — 3.8 million square miles. Mr Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a Director at the Scripps Centre for Clouds, Chemistry and Climate, was quoted as saying: “It appeared as if the whole Indian sub-continent was smothered by a mountain of pollution”.

And, how did India react? Extraordinary though this may sound, there was simply no reaction at all. A couple of Indian newspapers lifted the story from The New York Times but buried it on some inside page and we went happily on with our lives as if there was nothing unusual at all about the entire Indian sub-continent being smothered in a “mountain of pollution”.

Where were those passionate environmentalists who are ready to die rather than allow that dam to be built on the Narmada and those who spend their lives preventing power plants from being built and roads from being constructed? Invisible and unheard as were those media specialists on the environment, always so visible and vocal on the international conference circuit.

Something appears to be very wrong with the environmental movement in India and that something could be politics. The noisiest environmentalists are to be found not trying to get the government to start taking serious measures against air and water pollution — the major killers in India — but making a racket about such things as the Enron power plant or the Maheshwar dam because these are the sort of things that bring publicity and attract the attention of politicians. Both the above-mentioned projects are among the least environmentally harmful in the world but are facing court cases and haranguing by leading environmentalists.

This kind of thing has served to make your columnist very cynical about environmental activism in this sadly polluted land. So, it was a pleasure to attend the release of the Green Rating Project report by Dr Manmohan Singh at the Centre for Science and Environment in New Delhi last Sunday. A pleasure because it was evidence that there is, in however small a way, some real work going on.

The Centre’s tiny office was bursting with people by the time I arrived. So many people that they spilled out onto a landing where tables laden with books on the environment had been set up. From this vantage point, Dr Manmohan Singh was too far away to see, leave alone hear but it made no difference because the report was made available to us in the press kit.

According to its findings J.K. Paper Mills of Raygada (Orissa) has been rated the greenset paper mill in India. The dirtiest paper mills, from an environmental viewpoint, turned out to be Grasim Industries Ltd (Kerala) and Amrit Papers and Mukerian Paper Mills (Punjab).

These results emanate from an examination of the paper industry under the Green Rating Project. The rating process took 18 months during which volunteers belonging to their network visited paper factories and filed detailed reports on what they saw. The news they brought was both good and bad. Good in that the owners of the paper mills cooperated fully with the investigation into their work practices and bad in that conditions in the paper industry were so bad that not a single factory got the project’s top — Five Leaves — award. Only two companies managed to get Three Leaves Award (or third place) while most others fell into the very environmentally unfriendly category.

The report found that outdated technology and bad use of resources and raw materials made the Indian paper industry not just uncompetitive internationally but also seriously destructive to the environment.

The paper industry ate into India’s last remaining forests but, according to the report, there was no government policy that promotes hardwood and bamboo plantations for use as pulp. So, only a few companies attempted to cultivate wood for their needs. It was also found that whereas a country like Japan recycles as much as 70 per cent of its paper, in India we recycle less that 30 pc, even though the paper industry imports wastepaper. There were other depressing findings like the fact that in our country where water was in such desperate shortage our paper mills use 300 tonnes of water to produce a tonne of paper while countries, using more sophisticated technology, use barely 25 tonnes.

If we are today one of the most polluted countries in the world it is mainly because our environmental groups have not done enough studies of this kind. If the Yamuna, once a river so beautiful that Shah Jehan chose its banks to build the Taj Mahal, is today a filthy, poisonous drain, it is mainly because there have been no green reports on the industries along its banks. There are, for instance, the tanneries in Kanpur and iron foundries in Agra which pour in water so filled with chemicals that the colour of the river seems to have changed permanently to rust. In Delhi the Yamuna water is synonymous with filth and it smells like sewage. It is used only to water gardens and when its being used you can smell it from a mile away.

The Ganga is in no better shape. In fact, most Indian rivers are now so polluted that their waters are dangerous and disease-filled. As for the quality of the air we breathe, the continent-sized cloud that was spotted over the Indian Ocean speaks for itself as does the fact that it is hard to drive through an Indian city or town in winter without noticing the ugly, white haze that envelops the city and its unfortunate residents like a pall. Doctors have repeated ad nauseum that things are so bad in cities like Delhi that most children born in the past five years automatically develop asthma.

So, is there anything we can do about these problems? Yes. The answer lies in our hands — yours and mine. The day that ordinary citizens start demanding clean air and water as a fundamental right the government will be forced to act. As will our environmental groups and other breast-beaters who waste so much time on preventing development as if it were not possible to have progress as well as a clean environment.

Unfortunately, the average Indian treats the environment with such contempt that even the enormous haze over the Indian Ocean bothered almost nobody. It is this kind of apathy that we will need to shake off if we are ever going to clean up the environment in the way that Western countries have done. Today, the most developed countries have the cleanest air and water but 20 years ago they faced problems similar to ours. We need to learn how they did it and we need many, many more Green Rating Projects.

Ministers’ spirited reply to Sebastian’s hardtalk

by Amita Malik

TIM Sebastian of the BBC has the reputation of throwing people completely off balance in his much-watched and usually admired programme “Hardtalk”. He is a confirmed badgerer, has a good research team and he was at his badgering worst when interviewing Jaswant Singh and George Fernandes, both ministers, in the aftermath of Kargil.

His main targets were those two Western bogies and media bullying points, human rights and our nuclear blast. He also asked George Fernandes if he believed in God which, one would have thought, was a private matter between God and Mr Fernandes. Both ministers not only coped with Sebastian’s hard and sustained aggression, but also replied in kind. Jaswant Singh gently but firmly, in dignified terms and with a smile most of the time. Fernandes was his usual mixture of earnestness and trade union eloquence which can sometimes lead him into rash statements. But Sebastian found it difficult to catch him out on the subject of human rights while waving sundry reports at him. All the more so because Fernandes has served on both national and international human rights bodies and even been to jail for his beliefs. Both promised to pursue any reports, if documented. Sebastian did not make reference to human rights violations by terrorists in Kashmir who gun down women and children, nor the forced eviction of Kashmiri Pandits. I wish the ministers had thrown some such details at him.

On the subject of our nuclear capabilities, the impression was created that while the Western (read white) nations have enormous stockpiles, only they can be expected to act with responsibility, while India is adding to the nuclear threat with its modest piles and the implication is that it is not as responsible as the Western nations and should surrender its nuclear capability forthwith while the Western nations keep theirs. The “big brother theory in action (some would call it a colonial hangover) because in these matters the Beeb remains staunchly British and follows the US-line anyway. It was encouraging to find that our politicians are fast learning to cope in sophisticated terms with the foreign media because some of them fail to realise they are not addressing the local audience and fall into the most dreadful mires and cunning traps.

Nearer home, I am getting a bit confused about who is on which channel. Prannoy Roy is on Star but also on the BBC. Karan Thapar is on Star after Doordarshan and also on the BBC, and I am sure I saw his Arundhati Roy interview under the old John Freeman BBC title “Face to Face”, twice within two days. To add to the viewers’ dilemma, because all three are eminently watchable, they frequently clash with each other, since Vir Sanghvi’s Star Talk (can’t they think of more original titles and stop shaking hands across the table with even Indian women a la “Hardtalk?) clashes with Karan Thapar’s “Face to Face”. So I had to choose between Vir with Yashwant Sinha and Rahul Dravid with Karan Thapar. And which would you choose? As is now the case with Indian voters left with a hard choice, I have decided to choose the better man or woman rather than the programme or interviewer. Rahul Dravid must be one of the most modest, honest, unpretentious and loveable people on TV. And when I told Karan I would like to join the long list of girls in love with Dravid, Karan said so was his entire crew. Thapar himself was transformed: gentle, smiling the older person in full sympathy with the younger man. He was actually heard saying at least twice. “Sorry to interrupt you.” Whatever his achievements in cricket, Rahul should get an award for taming Thapar. In, my opinion, the best interview I have seen by Thapar, because he adapted so beautifully to the man and the occasion and a pat on the back for his research team.

Another pat on the back to Rajdeep Sardesai, who was the only Indian TV media correspondent in Pakistan while Kargil was still being sorted out. Among his major achievements, the sometimes chilling rare interviews with leaders of various “Mujahideen” groups, another with Najam Sethi and, of course, with Pakistani leaders. He gave the feel of the common people of Pakistan as well. In fact, there was no Indian channel to touch the all-round coverage, the follow-up coverage and the human interest stories by Star News. No one else was in the same class on the electronic media, although I also take off my hat to our print journalists, many of whom also displayed the same sort of class.

75 YEARS AGO

Public petitions regarding Bills

IT may also be pointed out that some time ago the Government adopted the recommendations of the Committee on public petitions and it is now open to the public, if they wish to do so, to present a petition to the Legislature through a member of the Assembly, representing their opinion about a Bill under discussion.

Thus the public can bring to bear pressure of their opinion on the Legislature regarding any Bill. The intention of this procedure was to afford opportunity to the public to take due interest in the legislation touching them deeply. The petition can also be forwarded to the secretary of the Legislative Chamber direct.