|
|
|
|
|
Boost for Delhi-Dhaka ties
Sikh marriages |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ass they say!
India, B’desh moving closer
A rare scholar
The roots of corruption lie more in the domain and dynamics of institutional structures, including
political, administrative, kinship and class, than in the realm of individual motivations
We, the people, matter
|
Boost for Delhi-Dhaka ties
There could not be a better time for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to undertake a visit to Bangladesh beginning on Tuesday. The two countries are ready to give such concessions to each other as were unthinkable a few years back, when BNP leader Begum Khaleda Zia was in power. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed of the Awami League has always been a votary of close relations with India in the larger interests of Bangladesh and the rest of the region. She provided proof of it first by declaring that no territory of Bangladesh would be allowed to be used for terror-related activities against India. She went further ahead and handed over to New Delhi a few terror masterminds belonging to extremist outfits operating in India’s Northeast. Dr Manmohan Singh, who will arrive in Dhaka along with the chief ministers of five border states, is expected to sign a number of agreements ironing out differences in approach between the two countries. Besides an accord on sharing the Teesta and Feni river waters, India and Bangladesh are ready to swap some border enclaves for facilitating the entry of each other’s nationals into certain areas where one reaches after taking a long circuitous route. In return, Dhaka also expects a lot from New Delhi. Indian generosity can be seen in many areas. India may liberalise the terms of payment relating to the $1 billion line of credit given recently to Bangladesh. New Delhi may also grant transit facilities to Bangladesh for doing trade with Nepal and Bhutan. Besides these, Bangladesh is likely to get major concessions in the area of trade in textiles with New Delhi prepared to remove the limit on exports from the other side. Bangladeshi textile exporters will get unrestricted access to Indian markets without the imposition of duties despite the opposition from Indian textile manufacturers. All this will not only lead to a new era in India-Bangladesh relations but also in regional trade. There is the possibility of huge investment inflows into the region owing to the pro-growth atmosphere that is expected to emerge. |
|
Sikh marriages
Law Minister Salman Khursheed has landed himself and his government in a soup after announcing that the proposal to amend the Anand Marriage Act to register Sikh marriages separately would be dropped. The minister had rejected a proposal which owed its origin to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice. It was in 1909 that the Anand Marriage Act was enacted by the British government in response to a widespread demand from the Sikhs. At that time, many Sikhs who were married according to the Anand Karaj rites faced problems because their marriages were not recognised. The amendment seeking registration of such marriages under the Sikh Marriage Act is a logical extension of the original sentiments, since now marriages performed under Sikh rites are registered either under the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act. While the minister’s suggestion of a national mechanism for registration of marriages, with codes for different communities, has some merit and sounds reasonable, it must be kept in mind that the Muslims, Parsis, Christians and Jews already have distinct Acts that allow for registration of their marriages, while the Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains all come under the Hindu Marriage Act. Though the minister struck a conciliatory note a day later, his remark has triggered off a reaction in the Sikh leadership, both political and religious. There is now the danger of the issue becoming a political one. Many statements have been issued, which is only to be expected. The atmosphere in the state is surcharged and the timing of the rejection of the amendment is inopportune, given the impending SGPC elections followed by Assembly elections. Logical explanations are seldom effective in an emotional environment. Political leaders, both at the Centre and at the state level, need to take measures to address this issue effectively and within a reasonable time span. |
|
|
Ass they say!
For a few years, our cricket boys were on a winning spree and came to be regarded as a national asset. Who would have thought that the England tour would not only puncture their balloon but also put a hyphen in their stature turning them from “asset” to “ass-et”. That did not happen only figuratively when they lost their numero uno position in the Test rankings. People actually said so, in literal terms. No less a person than former England captain Nasser Hussain threw the “donkey” epithet at them — that too for public consumption. The comments of Hussain, a member of the commentary panel covering the T20 International between Indian and England, came after Parthiv Patel misjudged Kevin Pietersen’s catch off Munaf Patel’s bowling. Hussain chewed the cud and said: “I would say the difference between the two sides is in the fielding. England are all-round good fielding side. I do believe that India have a few — three or four — very good fielders and one or two donkeys in the field still”. Now, being compared to any specimen from the animal kingdom is a big no no for anyone, whether an Indian or an Australian — ask Andrew Symonds who was the target of Harbhajan Singh’s Monkeygate! So the Indian cricketing fraternity is bristling like a porcupine. There was a furore earlier also at the mere title of the film “Slumdog Millionaire”. Those who had perhaps never heard words like “underdog” created a ruckus at the use of the word “dog”. In the present case, the direct comparison with donkeys has got some people’s goat. There is a clamour for not only an apology but also the removal of Hussain from the broadcasters’ commentary panel. Indians have an elephantine memory and may remember the snub for donkey’s years. Thank heavens that the donkeys are colour neutral. Otherwise this might have also turned into a racial controversy. One thing is for sure. Nothing fails like failure. The cricketers have been cribbing that making them play matches back to back was donkey’s work. Yet, they are loath to asinine remarks. One just hopes that the controversy does not generate more animalistic feelings. |
|
|
Life has no auto-settings. No batteries. You have got to wind it up! — Jeb Dickerson |
India, B’desh moving closer
It is a cardinal principle of good neighbourly relations that, differences notwithstanding, each neighbour should respect the other’s interests and refrain, in particular, from actions which may cause security-related concerns to the other. In today’s globalised world, in particular, honesty and candour, trust and transparency are the sine qua non of good international relations. It was precisely the trespass of these principles by Dhaka’s BNP governments that had soured India-Bangladesh relations for years. Begum Khaleda Zia, leader of the BNP, as Prime Minister of Bangladesh was in un-abashed denial of ULFA’s safe havens in her country from where they were launching terrorist attacks in Indian territory. Pakistan’s ISI was also operating to infiltrate arms and terrorists into India from Bangladesh. Naturally, during Begum Zia’s rule Bangladesh-India relations sank to their nadir, and bilateral problems which could have been settled years earlier remained unresolved, causing much avoidable bitterness and mistrust between the two neighbours. India-Bangladesh relations have undergone a sea-change since Sheikh Hasina Wajid’s accession to power in Dhaka in 2009. The catalyst of this salutary change was her statesman-like act to arrest and hand over to India the leaders of ULFA — “chairman” Aurobindo Rajkhowa along with key figures like Raju Baruah, Sasha Choudhury and Chitraban Hazarika. Out on bail in India, these gentlemen are now engaged in unconditional talks with the Union government. Antu Chaudang and Pradeep Chetia, Saurav and some other cadres were pushed back by Bangladeshi security forces from the border at Dawki. Anup Chetia is under detention and will in all probability be handed over to India. ULFA’s “commander-in-chief”, Paresh Barua, is still at large and may have escaped to China, Pakistan or Myanmar. The message has gone out that Sheikh Hasina’s government will not allow Bangladesh territory to be used for anti-India activities. Prime Minister Hasina took this transformational action as a matter of policy, well before her state visit to India in January 2010 and without bargaining for a quid pro quo from India. The action electrified New Delhi and invoked in our authorities a sense of obligation as well as responsibility to act likewise to settle, to Dhaka’s satisfaction, long festering issues of sharing waters of common rivers, border management, dispute over a short stretch of the boundary, transfer of enclaves, the glaring trade imbalance and the maritime boundary dispute. The 52-paragraph Joint Communique signed during Prime Minister Hasina’s state visit in January 2010 has become the basis of a new, vastly improved and truly good neighbourly relationship between the two countries. Full implementation of the provisions of the communique will make Bangladesh-India relations a model for South-Asian relations. Even more importantly, Bangladesh, which lies at the strategic centre of two large regions of South Asia, and ASEAN will become a vibrant and prosperous hub of cultural, commercial and economic interaction between these regions with growing economies and a population of around 2 billion. It passes understanding that India’s two major neighbours — Pakistan and Bangladesh — should have for so long allowed forfeiture of the enormous advantages of their geostrategic locations to unwarranted and unprofitable hostility towards India. While Sheikh Hasina has been steadfastly implementing her part of the understandings reached in January 2010 despite the BNP’s vociferous hostility, there have been complaints, in Bangladesh and in India, about the comparative lack of the requisite sense of urgency on India’s part in doing its bit to implement the Joint Communique. However, in a recent visit to Bangladesh, we learnt that in intensive negotiations between the two sides at the level of ministers and senior officials in recent months, substantial progress has, in fact, been achieved in reaching agreed positions on a number of major issues, and agreements are likely to be signed during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s forthcoming visit to Dhaka. We also found that the visit is awaited with much expectation, hope and enthusiasm. There is a palpable change in the public perception of India and because of this even the BNP, known for its traditional reservations in relation to India, has softened its stand: the party declared recently that it would not oppose deals with India if these are beneficial for the country. This is an additional reason for India, now, to go out of its way to show genuine interest in Bangladesh and resolve long-pending issues to the satisfaction of our smaller neighbour without pressing demands which might rile the Opposition — the BNP, for example, continues to oppose grant of transit facilities from mainland India to the country’s Northeast. In inherently complex neighborhood negotiations, local sensitivities have to be borne in mind, and this mostly has to be on the part of the larger neighbour. The ticklish issue of sharing the waters of the Teesta and Feni rivers, considered unsolvable till now, appears to have been sorted out. We believe agreements are also likely to be signed on transfers of enclaves inhabited by nationals of one country in the territory of the other, on the 2.4 km disputed land boundary and on cooperative border management to avoid killings of trespassers. Some further reduction in the negative list of items for trade and enhancement of the textiles quota is also on the cards, which in our view is not enough. Pakistan is a separate case, but with the rest of our South Asian neighbours we should be aiming at what Prime Minister Vajpayee had proposed a decade earlier for South Asia — “open borders and single market”. We strongly recommend elimination of the negative list, removal of all customs and tariff barriers to allow free flow of goods and services between the two countries. Fiftyfour rivers flow down from India into Bangladesh where they play a dominant role in the socio-economic life of the people. Bangladesh is bound to be impacted by the harnessing of these waters in upstream India. The needs and well-being of human beings on both sides of the border are involved. Therefore, a joint permanent machinery should be established to constantly watch the utilisation of these waters on both sides of the border and ensure equitable sharing and timely prevention of disputes. The opposition BNP, led by Begum Zia, has made a political issue of transit facilities for India across Bangladesh territory, regardless of the fact that India has granted transit across its territory separating Nepal and Bangladesh. This is a hangover from the past and it would be impolitic to press our request on the Hasina government at this stage. As confidence and the habit of cooperation grow, and public perception of India improves further, Bangladeshis will see the benefits of exploiting the advantage of their country’s geographic location not only as a bridge between India and its Northeast but also as a vital (and profitable) meeting ground between South Asia and South-East Asia. Finally, we recommend that during his visit to Dhaka Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should, as a gesture of goodwill and friendship, unilaterally offer to convert half of the $1 billion soft loan given to Bangladesh earlier into a grant and make the rest interest-free.n Mr Rasgotra, a former Foreign Secretary of India, is the President of the Observer Research Foundation, where Dr Bhattacharjee is an Associate Fellow. |
|||
A rare scholar
He would feel pity at Gandhian Anna Hazare when the great social activist roared from Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan to press his demand for a strong Lokpal Bill to eliminate corruption. His argument, unlike that of Anna, was that no law would be enough to stamp out corruption unless there was a broad-based social movement to change people’s thinking. In his opinion, there was need to work for having a society in which the corrupt had no place to survive. But Dr Kausar Yazdani was not a crusader against corruption. He was a journalist, thinker, scholar and litterateur. One rarely comes across a person like him. He translated a number of books from Arabic into Hindi. It is difficult to find a person who is well-versed in these two languages. He also translated into Hindi many books written in English and Urdu, besides having authored a number of books in Hindi and Urdu. He died last week in New Delhi soon after Anna Hazare ended his indefinite fast. That he was my close relative — father-in-law — is a different matter. Though he began his career as a journalist in Urdu, within a few years he shifted to Hindi with a purpose. He viewed Hindi as the fastest growing language, at least in the cow belt. His idea was that whatever he wrote in Hindi would attract a larger number of readers than Urdu, his mother tongue. Hence the decision to try his luck in Hindi. And this paid him rich dividends. He became the founder-editor of a weekly magazine in Hindi in his early twenties, an age when most journalists start cutting their teeth in the profession of pen-pushers. He edited Kanti, a magazine respected for its authenticity, till he retired. He combined in him two kinds of scholarship — religious (Islamic) and literary (Hindi). When he joined a college for doing his graduation, his classmates would laugh at him because of his being a maulana, a product of a religious seminary in Lucknow. But many of those who made fun of him became either his friends or admirers after the results of the fist semester were declared. He not only did his graduation as a father of four children but also post-graduation in Hindi and then Ph.D. He got offers from universities in Delhi to join their Department of Hindi, but his reply was that he was fully contented as a magazine editor and author. Dr Yazdani had a rare quality of inspiring people to take to journalism. I am sure I would not have been in this profession had I not met him during my student days. He forcefully argued that there was no profession better than journalism if one aspired to bring about social change. Is Anna Hazare listening?n |
|||
The roots of corruption lie more in the domain and dynamics of institutional structures, including
political, administrative, kinship and class, than in the realm of individual motivations
Indian society is witnessing a wave against corruption the likes of which it has never seen in the past. In fact, this kind of peoples’ upheaval against corruption does not seem to have occurred in any other part of the world either. Triggered by Anna’s fast unto-death for pressurising the government to accept the Jan Lokpal Bill, the upsurge is gathering unprecedented momentum. On the face of it, Anna’s demand for the passage of the Bill doesn’t seem to be such a big issue. What is it then that accounts for the huge public support that it commands? It is the cause at its core, i.e., the mission of combating corruption, a monster that has been bugging people for long, that explains the massive support of the people. Scams Galore This dubious distinction apart, Indian society had to hang its head in shame in 2010-11 when corruption reached at its blatant worst, nay its tipping point, with the stunning disclosures of CWG, 2G spectrum, Adarsh Housing and many more. The public anger against it has been building all the while but could not find collective expression for want of a credible rallying point. The political parties failed to provide such a platform, despite their occasional attempts to make corruption an election issue to serve their partisan interests. Anna’s noble move came a day not too soon to provide a much needed viable rallying point which is why it is receiving such a mammoth support. The prevailing mobilisation signifies an event with a difference. For one thing, led by a public figure known for his impeccable integrity and resolute commitment to social causes, the movement developed at the hands of civil society. In the process it lent weight to the authenticity of civil society and its gathering influence. Incidentally, the rise of civil society has been associated with the decline in corruption in many parts of the world, mainly in the developed nations. Secondly, it is marked by an intense engagement of the urban, educated middle class which is rapidly growing bigger with its current strength of 22 million households in urban India, according to a report of the McKinsey Global Institute. Thirdly, the movement is being carried forward by youth who have come forward in incredible numbers to lead it in numerous cities and towns. It registers a new awakening of youth about their stake in India’s future and hence their concern for a clean, transparent, accountable and responsive governance. Fourthly, it reveals the immense power of social networking as a medium of civil mobilization, among other things. Fifthly, the prominence of these sections notwithstanding, it grew into a mass movement encompassing people of all walks of life, all classes from corporate to domestic maids, all age groups and men and women alike. Finally, it has earned acclaim for its enviable distinction of passing as a peaceful protest. The only section of society which has raised a dissenting against it is represented by the ‘Dalit’ and the ‘backward’ lobby. Their leaders contend that the move is unconstitutional, anti-reservation and it portends a dangerous development. They have problems with the dictatorial and unreasonable stance of the civic leaders which tends to undermine the constitutional, institutions like the parliament. Some members of the Parliament as well resent it. The view is not altogether baseless and the civic leaders would do well to be civil in their conduct. However, the question is: what do the people or the social activists do if the parliament sleeps over a public issue for as long as 42 years? More importantly, the critical question is: in the event of a rift between the people at large and the parliament, which agency merits primacy? The constitutional experts may advise.
Safeguarding quotas At a deeper level, however, the opposition by the Dalit and the backward lobby seems to stem mainly from their perceived threat to the policy of reservation, just in case the civil society were to launch such an agitation against it. Their opposition thus appears to be more of a pre-emptive action to safeguard their reservation benefits than to oppose the mission of the movement to curb corruption. Some sympathizers of the present movement read into it the resonance of the traditional differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar. Some others have objected to the draft of the Jan Lokpal Bill and its contents. Aruna Roy as well as J.P. Narayan of Lok Satta, for instance, find the Bill rather unwieldy and overambitious and for the same reason suspect its efficacy. Alternatively, they have advanced their own separate versions. There is finally a more fundamental question that merits consideration: can the passage of the Jan Lokpal Bill, all by itself, deliver liberation from corruption? It doesn’t seem likely. The problem of corruption is far too complex and intricate to be tackled by a single piece of legislation, no matter how comprehensive and stringent it is. Corruption is a hydraheaded phenomenon that takes various forms not all of which are amenable to be handled by legislative measures alone. It warrants differentiated strategies to deal with different forms. More importantly, the roots of corruption lie more in the domain and dynamics of institutional structures, including political, administrative, kinship and class, than in the realm of individual motivations, though the latter cannot be regarded as altogether inconsequential. Given the structural sources of corruption, it warrants tackling strategies of institutional reforms as much as of regulatory ones. Within the regulatory framework also, it calls for institutional reforms which may provide for independent and autonomous supervisory and investigative agencies. Above all, there is an urgent need for strengthening our enforcement mechanisms too. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is right in stressing the need for judicial reforms. No less important, if not more, however, is the need for reforms in our polity which constitutes the fountainhead of corruption from where it flows down to administrative and other domains. It is interesting to note the omission, deliberate or inadvertent, of a reference to the need for political reforms in the Prime Minister’s statement.
New awakening Conceding all the limitations of the Bill, its sociological significance lies in generating new developments. First, it has sharpened peoples’ awakening about the gravity of corruption and stirred their conscience and mobilized them against it. Secondly, it has lent voice to peoples’ built up aggression against it. Thirdly, it has changed their perceptions about corruption by debunking their smug belief that corruption has become a way of life and that it is a necessary evil with which they have to put up. The movement has shown that evil it is, but not necessary. At a time when people had ceased to react to it and even begun to see merit in it on the count that it at least gets things done, it is no small achievement. Fourthly, it has also delivered a severe blow to the contention of a number of eminent social scientists who once contended that corruption has functional value, and that it promotes economic development rather than retarding it. Like the people, several scholars have underscored efficiency value of corruption in getting things done. Nathaneil H. Leff, an economist, states: “if the government has erred in its decision, the course made possible by corruption may well be the better one”. Further, Samuel P. Huntington, a renowned political scientist, observes, “In terms of economic growth, the only thing worse than a society with a rigid, over-centralized, dishonest bureaucracy is one with a rigid, over-centralised, honest bureaucracy”. Fifthly and finally, the movement has brought to fore the potential of peoples’ power to rein in erring polity. This shows maturity of our democracy and augurs well for future. Overall, the Jan Lokpal Bill is not so much about legislative enactment alone as about initiating serious measures to curb corruption. It has emerged as a symbol of expression of peoples’ anti-corruption sentiment. Most important of all, it represents peoples’ intense craving for a new public hygiene. For sure, the Bill by itself, is not likely to root out the endemic and entrenched problem of corruption. Nevertheless, it marks a significant beginning and represents an important milestone in peoples’ fight against it. It as well paves the way to the introduction of institutional reforms by creating the institution of Jan Lokpal at the centre and Lokayukta at the state level. The writer, former Chairperson Department of Sociology, Panjab University is an eminent sociologist who has worked extensively on corruption. He is currently working on his book on “Sociology of Corruption”. |
|
We, the people, matter I
think Team Anna has carried out a brilliant campaign. It was conceptualised, organised and executed brilliantly. Anna Hazare has an exemplary record in his fight against corruption and he was the irreplaceable beacon of hope around whom we all rallied. In him, we found an idol to our belief in austerity and a mirror to our frustration with corruption. Team Anna, brought out a wel-researched and worded draft of a Bill which could serve as a solution that the government had to adopt. They propagated the contents of this solution far and wide using conventional media and social media tools. My more inspired peers chose to leave their facebooks and gmails for a while and join the protest. Every morning the Mumbai local greeted me with chants of “Vande Mataram” and “Inquilab Zindabad”. Team Anna roused us all out of our indifference and inspired us to stand up for what we thought was right. In the end, if I dare to call it the end that is, the Team, joined by millions of protestors from across the country, were able to stare the Parliament into a submission of sorts and extract a promise. One prominent issue throughout this interim was that of tactics employed by our government. The definition of democracy places the people of a State at its core. A government has to be of, by and for the people. The Constitution, for all the reverence that we have for it, is, at the end of the day, a document that provides for procedures which we follow so that we can ensure the same set of rights and duties uniformly to all citizens of our country. Should it happen that proper procedure inhibits its very purpose, the procedure needs to be cast aside so that the will of the people can be exercised. With this background, it was sad to see our MPs talking of “due process” and “respect for the Parliament” in their defence against the agitation. In fact, the very Parliamentary and Constitutional procedure that our MPs sought to protect has been violated by them in spirit, if not letter, so many times during the tenure of the present government that it would have been laughable to see them take that stance. One has to accept that some of the government’s arguments against the Jan Lokpal Bill have merit. Our country, or for that matter, almost any democracy, runs as a functional chaos involving the three branches of the government, all of whom have somewhat independent interests and powers. The constant conflict ensures that all three are bound by checks and balances and that no one group can take complete control of the nation. The Lokpal, in due course of time, runs the risk of mutating into a super-authority whose whims and fancies would be imposed on the rest of the country. In our effort to secure our system from one evil, we risk catapulting it towards another equally dangerous consequence. The entire campaign is an expression of a people who have had enough of shame and scandal, enough to come out on the road and protest against it. The government made hollow promises to the people in April and tried to get away without fulfilling those promises. It should know better this time around.. —The writer works with Price Waterhouse Cooper, Mumbai |
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
Corruption has grown in free India through two phases: a phase of proliferation (1960-90) and another of explosion of mega corruption (1991 onwards). Corruption mushroomed during the first phase due to licence-quota-permit raj, among other things, and grew into mega corruption in the second phase following the economic reforms in 1991. Its recent spurt is highlighted by a number of media surveys, research studies and, above all, the annual reports of Transparency International, a Berlin-based corruption watch agency which is known for its annual exercise of ranking various countries of the world on its Corruption Perception Index (CPI). India has always figured among the “highly corrupt’ countries, and at times even among the “ten most corrupt” countries of the world which is clear from the following table.