International Affairs,Essays,Selected Editorials,etc

Read Users' Comments (0)

वरिष्ठ खेल पत्रकार

ये सवाल हमें लगातार शर्मिंदा करता है कि हमारे कुल घरेलू उत्पाद की दर जहां दुनिया के समृद्ध देशों को भी पीछे छोड़ रही है, वहीं हम अंतर्राष्ट्रीय खेलों के पहले पायदान पर भी नहीं पहुंच पाए.
आरोप प्रत्यारोप के इस चक्र में शक की सुई घूम कर जाती है, खेल अधिकारियों की ओर, जिन्होंने खेल का स्तर सुधारने की तरफ़ ध्यान ही नहीं दिया.
खेल संगठनों में पनपते भाई-भतीजावाद, भ्रष्टाचार और निहित स्वार्थ के कारण एक अरब से ज्यादा की हमारी आबादी मात्र दर्शक बनी रह गई.
आंकड़ों को देखा जाए, तो दुनिया भर में, खेलों की लोकप्रियता बढ़ाने में हमारा सबसे बड़ा योगदान है.
लेकिन भारत में कितने खिलाड़ी हैं और कितने दर्शक, ये अंतराल भी दुनिया के किसी और देश मे नहीं होगा.
हर 4 साल बाद जब ओलंपिक खेलों का मौसम आता है, और बातें छिड़ती हैं कि कौन सा देश कितने पदक ले जाएगा, तब भी यही सवाल हमारे सामने फिर आ खड़ा होता है कि हम में वह काबिलियत क्यों नहीं.
सौभाग्य से हमें अभिनव बिंद्रा मिल गए, जिनकी वजह से ओलंपिक में स्वर्ण पदक न जीत पाने की शर्मिंदगी कम हुई, लेकिन खेलों के औसत स्तर को आज भी न छू पाने का मलाल तो अपनी जगह रहेगा ही.
इस सवाल का जवाब काफ़ी जटिल है, और यहां इसकी परतों को खोलने की कोशिश करना भी बेकार होगा.
क्रिकेट की जहां तक बात है, दुनिया भर में बनी अपनी छवि पर हम गर्व कर सकते हैं.
लेकिन ये तथ्य भी हमारी शर्मिंदगी को कम नहीं कर सकता, क्यों कि दुनिया के कुल 8 देश इस खेल में अपना हाथ आज़माते हैं.
पिछड़ने के कारण
मेरे विचार में खेलों की दुनिया में हमारे पिछड़ने के कई कारण हैं.
आम तौर पर अनदेखा कर दिया जाने वाला एक बड़ा कारण है, आर्थिक विकास में असंतुलन.
इसी आर्थिक असंतुलन की वजह से हमारा वर्गीकृत समाज, सदियों से अपने ही लोगों को हेय समझता रहा है.
ये वर्गीकृत समाज उनके विकास के बारे में सोचने की ज़रूरत भी नहीं समझता.
भोपाल गैस त्रासदी को ही लीजिए.
अगर निम्न मध्यवर्ग और झोंपड़ पट्टी की जगह किसी आधुनिक शहर के किसी संभ्रांत इलाके के 20 हज़ार लोग मारे गए होते, तो हमें ये जानने में, 25 साल नहीं लगते कि सत्ता में बैठे लोग किस सीमा तक संवेदना हीन और गुटबजाज़ होकर न्याय की कमर तोड़ सकते हैं
इससे पहले, कि आप मेरी इस पूर्व धारणा पर सवाल खड़ा करें कि इन बातों का खेल से क्या संबंध, मैं बचाव में कुछ तथ्य रखना चाहूंगा.
दुनिया भर में ज़्यादातर खिलाड़ी निम्न मध्यवर्ग से आते हैं.
गांवों और क़स्बों से आए हुए ये ग़रीब लोग खेलों मे प्रशिक्षण लेते हैं, उन्हें सारी सहूलियतें मिलती है, एक व्यवस्था होती है, जहां कोई ‘अपना एक अलग वर्ग’ नहीं बना सकता.
खेलों ने, दुनिया से भेदभाव हटा कर उसे सिर्फ़ एक वर्ग में समेट लिया है और ये तथ्य फ़ुटबॉल में सबसे ज़्यादा सही साबित हुआ है.
एक कुपोषित राष्ट्र की जगह, एक समानतावादी समाज में खेलों के चैंपियन के पैदा होने के अवसर सबसे ज़्यादा होते हैं.

Read Users' Comments (1)comments

Friday’s unfortunate attack on a Mumbai-bound train in West Bengal and the tragic loss of several innocent lives has once again brought to fore the enormity of the Naxal problem which our country faces today. By all yardsticks, Naxalism today poses the gravest threat to the country’s internal security. The tragic incident has also proved that Centre’s response to the home-grown guerrillas has been ‘inadequate’ and unstructured, if not slow.

The UPA government has time and again invited the Maoist rebels to abjure violence and come to the negotiation table for a proper redressal of their grievances. However, Centre’s appeal for peace with Naxals has borne no fruits so far and the banned ultras have vehemently rejected the truce offer.

I don’t wish to blame Union Home Minister P Chidambaram for his inept handling of the Naxal issue as he has been working tirelessly to improve and strengthen the internal security scenario in the country ever since he assumed charge.

But what disappoints me is the fact that at the UPA government’s much-touted two-pronged strategy – one aiming at the all round development of Naxal-infested regions and the other aiming at ending the deadlock through peaceful manners – has been unstructured and replete with flaws.

The Maoists have, in fact, been using the developed infrastructure in conducting recce of their targeted spots, planting bombs, acquiring sophisticated weaponry - either by looting it or buying them from open arms market, as indicated by Chidambaram himself. Indications are strong about ‘outside help’ being offered to these banned ultras, leading to the disintegration of the Indian state.

The Home Minister has succeeded in achieving unanimity on Centre-state approach towards the Naxal problem and a greater coordination among various agencies in weeding out the problem. However, despite the concerted efforts, we have helplessly failed to avert major tragedies like the attack on CRPF troopers, on bus carrying civilians in Dantewada and derailment of Gyaneshwari express.

Centre’s reluctance in treating Naxals like terrorists and its constant refusal to use armed forces against them is further aggravating the problem. The Centre has so far been sticking to its stand of using central paramilitary forces and local police in dealing with the Maoist rebels.

I would like to stress, that no one has any doubt over the competency and capabilities of the paramilitary forces camping in the Naxal-infested forests to fight and dismantle their network.

But the situation now warrants a change in our approach towards Naxals, who should not be pardoned at any cost.

Although, the Maoists’ hand in Gyaneshwari Express derailment is yet to be established, but if it is confirmed, the opposition parties would step up pressure on the UPA government, forcing it to review its anti-Maoist strategy.

After a string of deadly attacks, the Naxals are still unrelenting and possibly readying themselves for a bloodier confrontation with the armed forces.

Expressing grave concerns over the Naxal issue, Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has termed Naxalism as the biggest threat to the country's internal security, so the situation now warrants that the issue be treated as a national problem.

The derailment of Gyaneshwari express has also brought to fore that Railways- the life line of India- has become an easy target for Naxals, as any attack unleashes maximum destruction, loss of lives and a big setback to the government.

The incident has also raised serious questions about the safety and well-being of passengers and put to test our preparedness to meet such mishaps and the effectiveness of our rapid response mechanism.

The incident also points towards the failure of our intelligence agencies since they failed to detect that Maoists’ had removed the fishplates or tinkered with the tracks.

Our intelligence agencies should have been at maximum alert and security of tracks should have been reviewed in the wake "black week" declared by Naxals to condemn police atrocities against their leaders and for an immediate halt to an armed campaign against them.

In March, Naxals triggered the derailment of country's prestigious high-speed Rajdhani Express and held it hostage for hours.

The rebels have attacked police, destroyed government buildings and infrastructure at will in recent months and appear undeterred by the Centre’s offensive to clear them out of their jungle bases.

The Maoist rebellion, which began in West Bengal in 1967 in the name of defending the rights of tribal groups, has now spread in rural pockets of as many as 28 states and is hampering economic progress.

The Naxals claim to be fighting against the exploitation of landless labourers and tribals but they have, in fact, waged a war against the Indian state. By killing innocent people, they no longer represent the most oppressed, deprived and exploited sections of our society.

Their disbelief in democratic institutions and people’s representation and their unwillingness to come forward for talks is actually hampering the progress and development of Naxal-affected regions.

The fruits of our economic progress cannot reach the tribals, Dalits, and the poorest of the poor, until and unless the Naxals shun the path of violence.

It is high time that we must stop debating whether Maoist violence is a central or state subject or a law and order problem. The situation now warrants that the Centre must change its ‘soft approach’ towards the Naxals, who have been mercilessly killing innocent people like terrorists and take tough military action against them.

sOURCE--  ZEE NEWS

Read Users' Comments (0)

Bangladesh

Read Users' Comments (0)

Read Users' Comments (0)

The world’s high table now seats only countries belonging to the G-7 and NATO groupings, which acting in concert advance the economic and political interests of the well heeled and economically developed nations of the world. These nations have the common underlying fabric of western European culture binding them together. Japan is the only exception, being non-European. But Japan, way back in the mid 1800’s in the aftermath of the Meiji restoration determined to Westernise, and after its post-WWII resurgence became an “honorary white” nation. Nothing symptomised this better than the fact that Japanese were officially designated just that in apartheid South Africa. And the Japanese were quite comfortable with that status.

The post Cold War era has seen the economic and political rise of a host of nations, Brazil, China and India being foremost among them. Since 2000 and the advent of Vladimir Putin, Russia with soaring oil prices has made impressive economic gains. The new South Africa, based equally on the industrial inheritance of the robust but unequal and exploitative apartheid regime and the bounty of nature, now finds itself as an advancing economic power. Unlike Nigeria which has frittered its oil wealth and has been looted by its native kleptocracy, South Africa has been a relative symbol of responsible government and probity in public life. Each one of these nations is now a major economic player and already has larger GDP than many in the G-7. Together, in the next couple of decades they will outstrip the G-7.

With the advent of new world economic and political powers, logic would demand that the global high table be expanded. But there is an inherent problem with exclusive clubs. Expansion means they become less exclusive and with it goes the attendant risk that some already members will become less important. On the other hand those who get admitted will find that their admittance has made the club somewhat less exclusive. Groucho Marx captured this paradox when he said: “I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.” If the G-7 were to remain an exclusive and powerful club, then the only way to ensure it would be to relegate some of the present members like Italy and Spain to some lesser league. Similarly, if the UN Security Council were to become a truly representative and powerful body, then Britain and France might have to be seen out and countries like Brazil and India brought in. Neither Britain nor France have the global economic reach of Germany, till this year the world’s leading exporting nation. 

Britain’s global power status is kept afloat by leased US nuclear submarines and missiles.

But this is not happening nor is it likely to happen in a hurry. In the meantime the world is changing. So the countries knocking on the doors are trying new diplomatic combinations, and these are many. On the basis of economic potential, and thanks to Jim O’Neill, the Goldman Sachs head of global economic research who coined the now familiar and catchy acronym, the BRICs, Brazil, Russia, India and China have come together to form a forum called just that. Phonetically BRICs has a constructive ring about it and works well. On the other hand it could have just as well been CRIBs, which in English means a cot for a baby and in the colloquial as discards on a card table.

But the fact of the matter is that there is nothing of binding commonality between these four countries. Brazil is far in the west and is a middle income and middle industrialised country with vast natural resources and a land mass to boot. Like Russia. Russia however is still a colossal military and nuclear power with a global reach. But the Russian main is in Europe and it is largely a Westernised country. China and India are low income Asian countries with gargantuan populations and an entirely different set of problems. But they are the giant economies of the future. Not only do they have not many cultural affinities but also are locked in a difficult territorial dispute. Then China is a totalitarian one party and repressive state, and does not have in place market economy structures with liberal labour laws and stringent environmental regulations in place like the other BRICs. So would these countries ever have come together if Jim O’Neill did not conjure up them as a group?

Now there is a veritable cornucopia of alphabet soups being conjured up. There is BASIC – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – which was very much in the news in Copenhagen as a ginger group that forced the western and industrialised nations, including Russia, to water down their growth constricting agenda. 

India, Brazil and South Africa as democratic, fast growing and non P-5 countries are coming together, presumably to force an expansion of the UN Security Council? China, already in the P-5 is opposed to any new permanent membership of the UNSC which includes Japan. There is already in existence a RIC’s grouping consisting of Russia, India and China that view with askance the meddlesome activities in Central Asia and the blatant partisanship of the USA in the Middle East.

Last week I was in a conference funded by the German foreign ministry for a GIBSA grouping to somehow inveigle Germany into the equation. Of late the new Hatoyama government in Japan has been signalling desire for a life outside the US umbrella and would like to have a grouping built around democratic countries like Japan, India and Australia. Nearer home there is BIMSTEC, or Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Srilanka and Thailand Economic Co-operation. And so it goes on.

Clearly the world is in a churn. The new global players are clearly unhappy with the management of the global system. What we need is a true power shift that reflects the emerging economic, political and military realities. But the multitude of agendas only serves to preserve the status quo – for the foreseeable future. Only when Brazil, Russia, India, China, South America, Japan and Germany, give or take some, come together and determine what the future world system must be, can we expect a new world order.

Source--http://www.groundreportindia.com/2010/05/alphabet-soup.html

Read Users' Comments (0)