Showing posts with label National Affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Affairs. Show all posts

Can National action plan on climate offer the solution?

Posted in Labels: , , , | 10:00 PM

Though the National Action Plan on Climate Change document details objectives, strategies, plans of action, timelines,  and monitoring and evaluation criteria, of the eight missions, some experts believe that its implementation is getting  delayed

GROWING INTERNATIONAL pressure to cut down its overall greenhouse gas emissions led India to come up with a roadmap detailing ways and means to mitigate the effects of climate change. The National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) was released in June 2008, a year after it was announced.
The action plan addresses eight specific areas, including the optimum utili sation of solar energy instead of fossil fuels like coal in the national energy grid.

Using recycled materials and designing buildings which are more airy and use solar energy, is also part of the action plan. Tapping solar energy for power generation is a highlight of the action plan.

The national action plan aims that by 2017, most of the households in urban areas, industries and commercial establishments should start utilising solar power. Through solar power, the country would bring down its dependence on fossil fuel energy sources like thermal power.

Another area highlighted in the NAPCC is promoting energy efficiency in the residential and commercial sectors, along with bringing down electricity consumption in residential and commercial areas. Estimates are that in a typical commercial building in India, around 60 per cent of total electricity is consumed for lighting, 32 per cent for space conditioning, and 8 per cent for refrigeration. Promoting the use of public transport over personal vehicles is also underlined in the NAPCC.

Another area highlighted is providing adequate water for all through the efficient use of this crucial resource. India wants 20 per cent improvement in water use efficiency through pricing and other measures to deal with water scarcity as result of climate change.

One of the worst hit due to climate change is the Himalayan Ecosystem, including glaciers. With increase in temperatures, glaciers have started melting.This has set alarm bells ringing in coastal areas which could get submerged.Sustaining the Himalayan ecosystem is a highlight of the NAPCC.

Afforestation is also one of the eight NAPCC missions.

The Centre proposes to plant trees in six million hectare of degraded forest land. Trees provide oxygen and taken in CO2.

In the area of agriculture, the national action plan aims to support climate adaptation in the sector, through the development of climate-resilient crops, and expansion of weather insurance mechanisms. The last of the eight missions under the NAPCC emphasises gaining better understanding of climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the challenges that lie ahead.


The NAPCC received a mixed response. Some find in it India's answer to the growing pressure on developing countries to accept binding emission norms. But a criticism is that it lacks urgency.
According to the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), the action plan is "fairly comprehensive". But the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People has said the NAPCC lacks urgency and the equity perspective.

The organisation has criticised the Water Mission, saying attempts to push for more big dams, irrigation projects, hydro-power projects, and interlinking of rivers will prove to be futile.

The government, on the other hand, is sanguine about the long-term impact of the eight missions under the NAPCC, and has announced that necessary funds would be available to them.

Though the NAPCC document details objectives, strategies, plans of action, timelines, and monitoring and evaluation criteria, of the eight missions, some experts believe that its implementation is getting delayed.

Read Users' Comments (0)

India's PDS fails to ensure food for all

Posted in Labels: , , | 1:24 AM

The National Food Security Act has failed to reform the discriminatory public distribution system leaving many high and dry. The costly targeted system excludes the genuinely poor and encourages corruption
A concept note on the proposed National Food Security Act circulated to all states continues to push for a targeted public distribution system instead of a universal one, and proposes to reduce the issue of foodgrains to 25 kg per BPL household, completely ignoring the contentious issue of who is poor and what an adequate and nutritious diet consists of.
At a public hearing on the public distribution system (PDS), held before the Justice Wadhwa Committee in Bangalore in December 2008, Sarojamma, a single parent with four children (one of whom is mentally disabled) pleaded for a below the poverty line (BPL) ration card. She had been given an above the poverty line (APL) ration card as she is a garment worker earning Rs 3,500 per month. The APL ration card fetches her only kerosene and no foodgrain in Karnataka.

To be eligible for a BPL card, Sarojamma needs to be earning less than Rs 17,000 per year, or less than Rs 1,500 per month. At today’s prices, the rent alone for a measly 10 x 10 sq ft space in Bangalore is upwards of Rs 1,500 a month. So, to be considered poor, the state expects its citizens to be living on air and to have no other needs such as health and education.

Eeramma, who has been a single parent for 20 years with six children, was seen pleading for an Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) card that would entitle her to 10 kg more foodgrain than her BPL card. Her BPL card gets her a maximum of 25 kg of foodgrain, or around 3.5 kg per person per month for her household of seven.

Insufficient food for the poor

One would have thought one needed at least 15 kg of cereal per person per month to provide 2,400 calories per day merely to exist, let alone eat a balanced diet consisting of pulses, oil, fruit and vegetables that is necessary to grow to one’s full potential and lead a healthy life. The present PDS expects you to become food secure by merely eating an inadequate quantity of cereal!

There were others like Arthiamma and her husband, both blind, and Ritu (name changed) who is HIV+, who had been given APL cards. Their social and physical vulnerability did not make them eligible for special consideration by the state.

"Almost 50% of its children are malnourished and 75% of its women suffer from anaemia; and per capita food availability has actually decreased"
What is incredible about ‘Incredible India’ is that while it sports a high growth in GDP, it ranks 66th in a list of 88 countries on the World Hunger Index. Almost 50% of its children are malnourished and 75% of its women suffer from anaemia; and per capita food availability has actually decreased between 1991 2004-05.
“Food security refers to a situation that exists when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life,” says an FAO report ‘State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2001’.

As reflected in these examples, India’s current public distribution system does not seem to be fulfilling any of the above criteria to ensure the right to food expected of a just and humane society.

Flawed concept note

However, into this gloomy scenario comes the UPA government’s hopeful promise of enacting a National Food Security Act. A concept note on the proposed Act, circulated to all state food secretaries by the food secretary, GoI, cites the above FAO quotation and says: “To ensure food security to all citizens of the country based on a rights approach, there is need for providing a statutory basis to food security.” And, “the nutritional status of individual household members is the ultimate focus,” (emphasis added).Although these pious statements give the impression that here, at last, is an attempt to address shameful deficiencies in the country’s food security situation, the rest of the concept note is more in the manner of a preamble to a National Food Insecurity Act!

While civil society is clamouring that the PDS be universalised, without any distinctions between BPL and APL, so that the poor get self-selected as it was earlier when the country was growing at the Hindu rate of growth of about 3%, the concept note seeks to make the targeted PDS statutory.
"If universalisation of the PDS is not accepted, those earning less than the minimum wage need to be considered poor"
The targeted PDS is costly and gives rise to a lot of corruption in the process of trying to decide who is and who is not poor. This results in the genuinely poor being left out whilst the ineligible get several cards. Economists like Jayati Ghosh say that the cost difference between a universal and targeted PDS is not very great. So what happens to the aim of covering all citizens?

Currently, the limits of annual income required for a household to be declared BPL are illogical. In Karnataka, for instance, the figures are Rs 11,000 and Rs 17,000 in rural and urban areas respectively. That means that a household of five people in Bangalore would have to be living on around Rs 47 per day, or about Rs 10 per person, on which even a beggar would not survive.

Rising hunger and malnutrition problem

In other words, a person would have to be earning less than half the minimum wage of Rs 88 (which itself is inadequate) to be considered poor. If universalisation of the PDS is not accepted, those earning less than the minimum wage need to be considered poor.

The concept note assumes without any justification that the nation may not be able to procure the required amount of foodgrain or bear the cost of a food subsidy. It is therefore proposing to reduce the scale of issue to 25 kg per BPL household, or 5 kg per person. This, despite the Supreme Court ruling that every BPL family shall be given 35 kg, and that no changes shall be effected in any food-related scheme without its permission. This will result in families having to buy 10 kg from the market, paying more for the same amount of food than earlier.

Taking all this into consideration, the Wadhwa Committee recommends that “the income criterion needs to be revisited” and that “estimation of poverty should not be made on a criteria (sic)which is less than the minimum wage fixed by the state for agricultural labourers”. Also, that “the government may also consider using calorie intake per person per day as an indicator of poverty”.

The People’s Health Movement has demanded that every person be given enough foodgrain to ensure 2,400 calories per day. Moreover, the predominance of cereals and lack of adequate pulses, oil, fruit and vegetables in the diet of most Indians is what is causing high levels of malnutrition among them. We need to find ways to get these items to the populace through the PDS, if malnutrition is to be addressed.

The concept note does not mention the word ‘malnutrition’ at all; it completely ignores the contentious issue of defining who is poor and how much and what constitutes ‘adequate and nutritious food’.

It does not recognise anywhere that entitlements should be linked to levels of malnutrition, if food security is to be achieved. It concentrates wholly on how to reduce the number of BPL families, reduce entitlements, and reduce subsidies. A great way indeed to ensure food security and raise India’s position on the World Hunger Index!

Binding clauses
Further, the concept note seeks to take away the freedom enjoyed by the states until now to: (1) fix the numbers of those who are BPL in their respective states; (2) decide the amount of foodgrain to be given to them, and (3) fix the rate at which these shall be provided. As a result of this freedom, the note says, the actual number of BPL ration cards issued by all the states is 10.68 crore while the accepted figure of BPL households by the Centre is 6.52 crore, resulting in an excess of 4.16 crore BPL cards. Tamil Nadu, for instance, has universalised the PDS, while Karnataka has issued BPL cards to 85% of households.

"The Centre is planning to bring in an enforcement mechanism that will monitor the states’ adherence to the Centre’s fiats and penalise those that transgress them"
The Centre is planning to curtail this right and insist that all states abide by the levels of poverty fixed by the Planning Commission, and that the Centre shall decide the numbers of poor that shall be eligible in each state, the amount of foodgrain that shall be given, and the rates at which these shall be issued to families.

To ensure that states do not defy these restrictions and fix their own entitlements, the Centre is planning to bring in an enforcement mechanism under the Food Security Act that will monitor the states’ adherence to the Centre’s fiats and penalise those that transgress them. Here is a blatant attempt not only to centralise decision-making and curtail the freedom of the states in a federal set-up, but also to reduce the basic entitlement to food of a hungry and malnourished nation.

The present allocation under the TDPS to the BPL and AYY categories is 277 lakh tonnes which entails a “huge commitment on the central pool for BPL families,” the concept note adds. The Planning Commission’s latest poverty estimates, according to 2004-05 figures, reveal that the country’s BPL population is only 27.5% whereas it was 36% according to 1993-94 figures.

As per the above, the number of BPL families (including AAY) will come down from 6.52 crore to 5.91 crore, and the number of APL families will go up from 11.52 crore to 15.84 crore. In view of this, based on the current scale of issue, annual allocations of foodgrain for AAY and BPL categories may come down from 277 lakh tonnes to 251 lakh tonnes, and for the APL category it will go up from 162 lakh tonnes to 202 lakh tonnes, the concept note estimates.

However, in view of this increase of 40 lakh tonnes for the APL category, the concept note makes the categorical statement that “the central government will not be able to guarantee distribution/supply of any quantity of foodgrain for the APL category from the central pool,” and that the “APL category may be excluded from TDPS,” except for APL families in some food-deficit and inaccessible states/union territories. This reasoning fails to recognise that there will be a saving of 26 lakh tonnes of foodgrain as a result of the reduction in BPL numbers.

The effective increase in foodgrain allocation to the APL category will thus only be 14 lakh tonnes. To use this reasoning to restrict the PDS only to 27.5% of the population is to deprive the rest of the population, which is unable to meet the requirement of 2,400 calories per day, of the right to food. Researchers like Utsa Patnaik estimate this number to be 70% of the population.

While civil society demands that BPL cards be updated every year in order to capture those who have slid back into poverty due to various exigencies like debt, drought, displacement, etc, the Centre is talking about annual updation only to seek out those who have risen above the poverty line, with the aim of taking away their BPL cards.

The concept note recognises that some households may have more than the average number of persons whereas others may have less than the average. But nowhere does the Centre make a commitment to provide foodgrain to every individual in a family, whether it has five or 10 members. It continues to think in terms of an upper ceiling of five units per household as the maximum that a family can receive. What happens to the guarantee of having the “individual as the focus”?

Schemes/ Yojana's for addressing hunger

Even more worrying seems to be the Centre’s intent to do away with other food-related schemes such as the Annapoorna Yojana for elderly destitutes and supply of foodgrain from the central pool to welfare institutions, hostels, etc, in the name of avoiding multiplicity of schemes, as beneficiaries of these schemes may already be covered under the TDPS.

By mentioning the school midday meal scheme, the ICDS scheme, and the nutrition programme for adolescent girls as schemes that cause multiplicity, the Centre is hinting that these too may be curtailed or done away with altogether. Or, at the very least, that it is keeping its options open. There goes the hope of 50% malnourished children and anaemic adolescent girls of ever leading a full and healthy life. In the same breath, the Centre is proposing that the Antyodaya sub-category within the BPL also be done away with on grounds that sub-categories are unnecessary.

"With this, the government seemingly wishes to wash its hands of any accountability ensuring the right to food to all its citizens"
The Centre doles out a plethora of excuses as to why it may not be able to obtain or sustain current levels of foodgrain procurement at minimum support prices, or sustain their distribution at current levels. And that all this uncertainty could necessitate the import of foodgrain.

The Centre also hints that if the issue price of rice and wheat are fixed at Rs 3 per kg for all BPL families, the annual food subsidy may go up from the current Rs 37,000 crore to Rs 40,380 crore. And that continuing to provide foodgrain for the APL category would further affect this figure. Nowhere is there an acceptance that these costs have to be borne as a matter of course if food security is to be ensured. The possible increase in cost is spoken of more in the nature of a looming threat to the economic health of the nation, which needs to be avoided.

The only good points in the concept note appear to be the government’s commitment to ensuring doorstep delivery of foodgrain to all fair price shops (FPSs), monitoring FPSs and certification of issuance of foodgrain by local vigilance committees, social audit by local bodies, computerisation of operations, effective grievance redressal mechanisms, and the setting up of food security tribunals at the taluka level, and appellate tribunals at the district level.

The piece de resistance of the concept note lies in the statement: “In case a state/UT government is unable to distribute the entitled monthly quantities of foodgrain to eligible BPL families/individuals, such families/individuals will be entitled for payment of a food security allowance.” With this, the government seemingly wishes to wash its hands of any accountability in the matter of ensuring the right to food to all its citizens.

Activists see the proposed Food Security Act as a gimmick to win future votes, just as the NREGA was seen as the reason for the substantial mandate given to the UPA in the last elections. The government will be seen to have done something pro-poor even though it will only be a mask behind which it quietly carries on its real agenda of neo-liberal reforms.

Read Users' Comments (1)comments

Green Tribunal Bill has many flaws

Posted in Labels: , , , , | 12:41 AM

India’s National Green Tribunal Bill has evoked much criticism over the issues of accountability, biasness and restricting appeals from rights groups, notes environment and health policy analyst Gopal Krishna. A lot of reform is needed before it is passed by the Parliament, he says.


The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Bill, 2009 that would judge environmental disputes was introduced in the Lok Sabha by Jairam Ramesh, Environment Minister on 31 July, 2009.

The Bill provides "for the establishment of a National Green Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources ..." The tribunal will have the same powers as a civil court. It will subsume various state-level authorities that address environmental issues, as well as committees created by the Supreme Court for that purpose.

The NGT comes in response to the 186th Report of Law Commission of India on the Proposal to Constitute Environmental Courts in September 2003. This report had noted, "the National Environmental Appellate Authority (NEAA) constituted under the NEAA Act, 1997, for the limited purpose of providing a forum to review the administrative decisions on Environment Impact Assessment, had very little work.

It appears that since the year 2000, no Judicial Member has been appointed [Eds: Numerous articles in India Together have reported on the NEAA's dysfunction]. So far as the National Environmental Tribunal (NET) Act, 1995 is concerned, the legislation has yet to be notified despite the expiry of eight years. Since it was enacted by Parliament, the Tribunal under the Act is yet to be constituted. Thus, these two Tribunals are non-functional and remain only on paper."

The NGT Bill, 2009 is meant to replace NEAA Act of 1997 and NET Act of 1995.
While it seems to be a step in the right direction, the Bill itself includes a number of flawed passages, which would need to be corrected before it is deemed fit for passage from Parliament as an Act.

Broadly, there are four kinds of problems.

Restrictions on who can approach the Tribunal: Judicial and quasi-judicial institutions cannot be strong if only a few people, conveniently selected by the authorities, are allowed to approach them. Moreover, since the courts have recognised that the environment falls within the purview of Article 21, it is clear that all persons have a duty to protect the environment and a corresponding right to question the adverse impact on environment and human health. But the Bill ignores this principle.

Instead, in Section 18 of the Bill, the locus standi of a person to file an application before the Tribunal reads, "any representative body or organisation functioning in the field of environment, with permission of the Tribunal" can file an application for grant of relief or compensation or settlement of dispute to the Tribunal. "There is no reason why only an environmental organisation can file appeals before the Tribunal"
 
This is highly problematic. There is no reason why only an environmental organisation can file appeals before the Tribunal. Why not human rights organisations, or public health institutions, labour groups, or even other plaintiffs. And it's laughable that the 'permission of the Tribunal' is needed to file applications before it.
This portion of the Bill should simply be deleted, before it heads inevitably towards a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court.

Appointment of experts: The intent of most appointed bodies can be judged from its composition, and on that score the Bill fares poorly. The proposed composition of the Tribunal follows a tried, tested and failed track; anyone who has read the 32-page Bill is bound to wonder if the Tribunal is meant to be a club for retired IAS officers and technocrats.

As it stands, the expert members of the Tribunal would need "administrative experience of fifteen years including experience of five years in dealing with environmental matters in the Central or State Government, or in a reputed National or State level institution". This is undisguised code for the 'jobs for the boys' program that nearly all retired senior bureaucrats join.

It has been a constant concern of the Supreme Court, which has been expressed in several orders that an expert body (the Tribunal, in the present case) should consist of experts in relevant fields and not the bureaucrats.

All earlier attempts in handling the environmental problems through the NEAA and other bodies have failed because their control was left in the hands of bureaucrats. Had such appointees been competent, those government departments or institutions where they served would have surely been instrumental in protecting the environment, which is clearly not the case and which had led to the necessity of the Tribunal. In fact it is the colossal failure of administrators that has created the compelling logic for the Tribunal itself.

"It would be infinitely better for the Tribunal's expert members to be of technical and scientific background" What would be infinitely better is for the Tribunal's expert members to be of technical and scientific background, experts in public health, occupational health, social science with relevant experience in environmental and occupational health, etc. with a minimum experience of 15 years. That would bring forth real experts.
 
Limiting the period of accountability: Section 14 (3) of Chapter III in the Bill deals with Tribunal's jurisdiction, powers and proceedings. It reads, "No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose".

It is not clear why there should be such a restriction. Disputes can arise at any time, and it is silly to expect that only those that arise in the first six months should be entertained by the Tribunal. The Bill is also silent on where one should take disputes that rise beyond this window of time!

Similarly, Section 15(3) reads, "No application of grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause of such compensation or relief first arose." The adverse effects of various environmental and public health hazards - silicosis, asbestosis, radiation exposure, chemical exposure, for instance - often take more than five years to manifest themselves.

Therefore, the fixed period of five years should be removed, or, alternately, the Bill should specify who will be liable for adverse effects discovered beyond this time limit.

Section 16 that deals with the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the matter of "any person aggrieved" by orders or decisions of the Tribunal or National Biodiversity Authority or State Biodiversity Board, under the stipulated provision of the NTG Bill, the person aggrieved can file an appeal "within a period of 30 days from the date on which the order or decision or direction is communicated to him".

The period of filing the appeal is too short, and should be extended to 60 days, as often individuals are prevented by unavoidable situations from filing appeals within 30 days.

Implicit threat to petitioners: Section 22(2) of the Bill reads: "Where the Tribunal holds that that a claim is not maintainable, or false or vexatious, ... the Tribunal may ... make an order to award costs, including lost benefits due to any interim injunction." This provision is quite discouraging. In general, the courts (Tribunal in this case) always have a general right to impose costs of trials and others costs upon petitioners or the accused. There is no need to include this explicitly in Section 22(2) .

This will deter concerned citizens from bringing environmental issues before the Tribunal, fearing the imposition of heavy costs in case their claim is disallowed.

"There is much that needs to be revised in the draft before the law is enacted. Whether the Environment Ministry now takes up such reform will be watched keenly"
 
Moreover, this clause is one-sided; it should be amended, at the very least, to say that costs can be imposed on defendants too, in cases where they are found to have misled the Tribunal through their vexatious actions.
In any event, the correct way to tackle this is for the Tribunal to decide whether, prima facie, the claim made by the petitioner is allowable before it, and also whether any defendants have a fair amount of explaining to do. If that is done, there will be almost no need for imposing any costs of trial and/or punitive costs on either party at the end of the trial.

With all these worries, there is much that needs to be revised in the draft before the law is enacted. Whether the Environment Ministry now takes up such reform will be watched keenly. Many observers have despaired of the Ministry's functioning during the last 10 years, and are hopeful that a new Minister, Jairam Ramesh, will steer a different course than the blatantly pro-industry stances of his immediate predecessors. The final version of the NGT Bill will be an important test of that hope.

Read Users' Comments (0)

A method to overcome drought in India

Posted in Labels: , , | 9:12 PM

Food security in India is getting more and more dependent on annual monsoons. In a year of low rainfall, a large section of the people, especially those below the poverty line, have to depend on subsidised government food rations. If this situation continues, the country will be stressed for resources to provide food for the people.
Coping with water shortage from failed monsoons is somewhat similar to coping with an economic crisis by a family where the breadwinners are laid off work. A family that practises saving money for a ‘rainy day’ can coast over the bad times better than one without any savings as a safety net.
India is blessed with better rainfall than many other countries. However, over 95 per cent of water received from rainfall is lost through run-off. The chief obstacle against harnessing rainwater from run-off and to recharge the depleting water table for future agriculture use is the sub-surface hardpan that prevents water percolation down the soil profile.

This hardpan is formed due to ages of primitive farming practices involving shallow ploughing of land for farming. If this obstructive hardpan can be broken up mechanically, water will freely percolate down the soil profile to be stored for use during periods of water shortage.

Method used in breaking up hardpan

Because they are centuries old, the hardpans in India are stone hard and will require mechanical tools to break them up. In developed countries, a tool named ‘chisel’ was developed more than half a century ago. This tool can be easily adapted for use in India, and its effectiveness is already demonstrated in several regions of the country.
Chisels of various lengths from 18” to 48” are commonly used in the west to loosen ground to the various depths required for various crops. 

The chief advantages of chiselling are: 
(a) It enables rainwater to percolate deep into the soil profile, recharging the water table, thus storing water underground for future use by humans and crops. 
(b) It enables plant roots to penetrate deep into the soil profile to exploit both water and nutrients from a larger volume of soil, enhancing crop yields. 
(c) It reduces the problem of siltation of lake and riverbeds. 
(d) It protects soil fertility by retaining topsoil from erosion through run-off. 
(e) It protects the environment by preventing pesticides used in farming operations from contaminating water bodies through surface run-off.

How and when to do chiselling?

Climatically, India has an advantage over western countries in the number of crops grown per year. With good planning a three-crop rotation can be adopted for most areas in India. The rotation may include a cereal crop followed by a pulse or edible oil crop and finally a vegetable crop. The cereal crop will provide the staple food, the pulse and oil crops the protein and oil component of a good balanced diet, and the vegetables vitamins, minerals and fibre, and also good cash flow for the farmer. Besides, this rotation can be used for improving soil fertility through atmospheric nitrogen fixation by the pulse (leguminous) crops.
In the economics of farming, the vegetable crop produces the maximum return for the farmer. Although adopting a three-crop rotation needs good planning, it has been proved very successful, especially when modern crop production technologies are adopted.
Chiselling is done most efficiently several weeks prior to the onset of the monsoon, when the soil conditions are still dry. Where a field is chiselled for the first time, it is found necessary to go for at least two trips across the field with gradual increments of shank depth. The second pass needs to be at a 45 degree angle to the first one.

Forming of bunds

Chiselling may be included as part of land preparation before planting a crop. Normally, 6 to 8 inch high bunds are formed around each field. It is possible to raise the height of these bunds by a few more inches to facilitate capture and for holding rainwater from run-off during heavy rains.
Prior to the chiselling operation, it is necessary to disc the field once and level the ground. After chiselling, it is desirable to level the ground once again. This is a good time for collecting soil samples for analysis. Following application of recommended soil amendments and fertilizers based on soil test results, all materials need to be incorporated in the soil 5 to 6 inches deep by disking. Allow 10 to 15 days for equilibrating the materials with the soil for the best results.
During the monsoon season, when the first rains fall on the ground, the rainwater percolates deep into the soil profile due to breaking of the hardpan by chiselling. During subsequent rains, instead of being lost as surface run-off, more and more water percolates deeper into the soil.

Special soil treatment

The higher bunds around the field will hold more water if a large amount of rainfall hits the ground and will slowly move down the soil profile to build up the water table. During times of excessive rainfall, there may be some overflow of water over the bunds. In order to prevent finer particles of soil being lost through this overflow, special soil treatments can be done before the onset of the monsoon. That will help aggregate the finer clay particles to heavier particles, which will settle to the bottom of the water, preventing loss of the fertile fraction of the soil. Thus only some clear water will flow over the dykes, preventing sedimentation of lake and riverbeds.
Thus if enough effort is made to do these operations right and on time, farmers can enjoy a ‘savings account’ of water that will come handy during times of drought.

Read Users' Comments (0)

The burden of injustice

Posted in Labels: , , , | 8:00 PM

t is a shocking reflection on the flaws in our criminal justice system that less than one out of three people lodged in Indian jails is a convict. The vast majority of the prison population, as many as about 2.5 lakhs or 70 per cent, is made up of undertrials awaiting justice. As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told the conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices, many of them have been in jail “for periods longer than they would have served had they been sentenced.” The Law Commission of India’s 78th report on the “Congestion of undertrial prisoners in jail,” submitted in 1979, also has a topical feel about it.

The situation today is not unlike what it was then — people languish in jail for the want of resources to seek bail, for the lack of proper legal aid, and the hopelessly sluggish pace at which the judicial system moves. Coupled with this is the presence of a police force that seems less interested in securing convictions than in making summary arrests, effectively using custody as a form of preventive detention.

If the problem of undertrials has proved so intractable, it is because it is a manifestation of fundamental and deep-rooted flaws in the criminal justice system.

The immediate task is to identify those who are eligible for bail and ensure their release. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2005, those accused of offences for which the death penalty is not prescribed are entitled to be released if they have been in detention for more than half the stipulated period of imprisonment. Also, the majority of the undertrial population is behind bars for petty offences and, by the Centre’s admission, “is under lock up in the absence of trial.”

Chief judicial magistrates have been asked by Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan to identify such cases and it is imperative that this exercise is carried out expeditiously so that these undertrials can be released on personal bonds. A more serious look at plea bargaining, introduced by the 2005 amendment for cases where the sentence is less than seven years, is called for. This could benefit many undertrials languishing in jails.

However, such immediate measures can address only a part of the problem. The fact that there is such a vast population of undertrials is closely linked to a larger issue — that of the lethargic pace of the criminal justice system, reflected in the world’s biggest backlog of pending cases. Dr. Manmohan Singh hit the nail on the head when he urged that “the expeditious elimination of this scourge… should constitute the highest priority for all of us.”

Read Users' Comments (0)

महिला आरक्षण विधेयक

Posted in Labels: , | 10:06 PM

पंद्रहवीं लोकसभा के पहले सत्र मे 4 जून 2009 को राष्ट्रपति प्रतिभा पाटिल ने दोनों सदनों की संयुक्त बैठक मेंघोषणा की कि सरकार विधानसभाओं और संसद में महिलाआरक्षण विधेयक को शीघ्र पारित कराने की दिशा मेंसौ दिन के भीतर कदम उठायेगी. संसद के दोनों सदनों को संबोधित करते हुए राष्ट्रपति प्रतिभा पाटिल ने महिलाआरक्षण को लेकर सरकार की मंशा सामने रखी.

राष्ट्रपति के अनुसार महिलाओ को वर्ग, जाति और महिला होने के कारण अनेक अवसरों से वंचित रहना पड़ता है. इसलिए पन्चायतों और शहरी स्थानीय निकाय में आरक्षण बढ़ाकर महिलाओं को 50 प्रतिशत आरक्षण देने केलिए अगले 100 दिन में संवैधानिक संशोधन करने के क़दम उठाए जाएँगे ताकि अधिक से अधिक महिलाएँसार्वजनिक क्षेत्र में प्रवेश कर सकें. सरकार अगले 100 दिनों में केंद्र सरकार की नौकरियों में भी महिलाओं काप्रतिनिधित्व बढ़ाने की कोशिश करेगी. इसके साथ-साथ बेहतर समन्वय के लिए महिला सशक्तिकरण पर एकराष्ट्रीय मिशन स्थापित करने का क़दम उठाया जाएगा.

15वीं लोकसभा ने कई मायनों मे इतिहास रचा है। नारी सशक्तीकरण अब राजनीतिक गलियारों का मुद्दा नही, बल्कि 15वीं लोकसभा की हकीकत है। यह पहला मौका है, जब संसद में प्रवेश करने वाली महिलाओं की संख्या 50 से अधिक है। यही नहीं सबसे बड़ी बात यह है कि भारत के इतिहास में पहली बार एक महिला को लोकसभाअध्यक्ष बनने का मौका मिला है। संसद में महिला आरक्षण का प्रश्न आज प्रत्येक व्यक्ति की चर्चाका विषय है।संसद और विधान मंडलों में महिलाओं को भी 33 प्रतिशत आरक्षण दिए जाने के उद्देश्य से 14वीं लोकसभा मेंवें संविधान संशोधन विधेयक ने देश के जनमत को फिर चैतन्य कर दिया था । 108

महिलाओं को राजनीतिक सशक्तीकरण और लैंगिक असमानता दूर करने के उद्देश्य से राज्यसभा में रखा गयाविधेयक इस रास्ते का पहला प्रयास नहीं था। तत्कालीन प्रधानमंत्री राजीव गाँधी ने प्रधानमंत्रित्वक काल में भी इसमोर्चे पर चिंतन हुआ था। पंचायती राज संस्थाओं और स्थानीय निकायों को संविधान में स्थान देने की योजनाबनाते समय संसद और विधान मंडलों के लिए भी ऐसे ही कदम की रूपरेखा बनी थी। बाद में प्रयास फलीभूत नहींहुआ।

महिला आरक्षण की त्रासदी
देश मे आधी आबादी (महिलाएं) पिछले एक दशक से अपना प्रतिनिधित्व बढाने की मांग कर रही हैं लेकिन पुरूषप्रधान राजनीति संसद में महिला आरक्षण विधेयक पारित नहीं होने दे रही। यह अप्रत्याशित और सुखद है किपन्द्रहवीं लोकसभा में उपेक्षित महिला वर्ग का प्रतिनिधित्व बढा है। यह पहला मौका है जब 58 महिलाएं लोकसभामें पहुंची हैं, जो अब तक का सर्वाधिक आंकडा है। इस बार कुल 556 ने चुनाव लडा था। उत्तर प्रदेश से सबसे ज्यादापश्चिम बंगाल से 7 और राजस्थान से 3 महिला सांसद चुनी गई हैं।
14वीं लोकसभा में देशभर में 355 महिला उम्मीदवार चुनावी रणक्षेत्र में कूदी थी। इनमें से महज 45 लोकसभा मेंपहुंच पाई, जो 543 सदस्यीय सदन का 10 फीसदी भी नहीं है। नई लोकसभा में पिछली की तुलना में 13 महिलाएंज्यादा है । 12,

दस साल पहले महिलाओं को विधानसभा और संसद में 33 फीसदी आरक्षण देने का शिगूफा छोडा गया। यह घोरविडंबना है कि महिला आरक्षण का ज्वलंत मुद्दा पिछले करीब एक दशक में किसी न किसी तरीके से लम्बित होतारहा है। राजनीतिक दल भी गाहे-ब-गाहे, महिला आरक्षण का राग अलापते रहे हैं। लगभग सभी पार्टियों के चुनावीघोषणा-पत्र में महिला आरक्षण पर अमल का वादा किया जाता है। प्रधानमंत्री रहते एच.डी. देवेगौडा और अटलबिहारी वाजपेयी ने महिला आरक्षण बिल पेश किया। पास कराने की कोशिश भी हुई, लेकिन सफलता नहीं मिली।सरकारें आती जाती रहीं, प्रधानमंत्री बदलते रहे। यह विधेयक 1996 से अब तक कई बार लोकसभा में पेश हो चुकाहै, लेकिन आम सहमति के अभाव में यह पारित नहीं हो सका। 12वीं और 13वीं लोकसभा में दो बार बिल कोराजग शासनकाल में प्रस्तुत किया गया। यूपीए सरकार के कार्यकाल में महिला आरक्षण विधेयक आगे नहीं बढा।आम सहमति न बन पाने को कारण बताकर महिला विधेयक को एक प्रकार से ठण्डे बस्ते में डाल दिया गया।

आज भी महिलाओं को संसद और विधानसभा में उचित प्रतिनिधित्व प्राप्त नहीं हैं। अन्तर संसदीय संघ (इंटरपार्लियामेंटरी यूनियन) के अनुसार विश्वभर की संसदों में सिर्फ 17.5 प्रतिशत महिलाएं हैं। ग्यारह देशों की संसदोंमें तो एक भी महिला नहीं है और 60 देशों में दस प्रतिशत से कम प्रतिनिधित्व है। अमरीका और यूरोप में बीसप्रतिशत प्रतिनिधित्व है, जबकि अफ्रीका एवं एशियाई देशों में 16 से 10 प्रतिशत। अरब देशों में महिलाओं काप्रतिनिधित्व सिर्फ़ 9.6 प्रतिशत है। महिलाओं को प्रतिनिधित्व देने के मामले में 183 देशों में रवांडा पहले नम्बरपर है। वहां संसद में 48.8 फीसदी महिलाएं हैं। संसद में महिलाओं को प्रतिनिधित्व देने के मामले में भारत दुनियामें 134वें स्थान पर है।

अधिकांश पुरूष सांसद महिला सशक्तिकरण की बात जरूर करते हैं, पर समाज की "आधी आबादी" के लिए त्यागकरने के लिए तैयार नहीं हैं। इस मुद्दे पर राजनीतिक दलों की कथनी और करनी में अंतर दिखता है। आरक्षण नसही राजनीतिक दल महिलाओं को ज्यादा से ज्यादा टिकट देने लगें तो भी महिलाओं की संख्या संसद में बढेगी।पन्द्रहवीं लोकसभा इसका उदाहरण है।

महिला आरक्षण क्यों?
भारत में महिलाओं को सम्मान और समानता की विचारधारा उतनी ही सशक्त रही है जितनी कि इनके साथअसमानता की। समय बीतने के साथ पुरुष प्रधान समाज ने ना मालूम कैसे रवैये में परिवर्तन कर लिया और नारीभी इसकी आदी हो गई। सती सावित्री, अहिल्या देवी, महारानी लक्ष्मीबाई, रानी दुर्गावती, अदिति पंत, बछेंद्री पाल, किरण बेदी, कल्पना चावला भारतीय महिलाओं के रोल मॉडल हैं। वह कौन-सा कार्य है, जो 'प्रस्तावित 33 फीसदीवर्ग' ने नहीं कर दिखाया है। पंचायती राज और स्थानीय निकाय संबंधी 73वें और 74वें संविधान संशोधन विधेयकके अधिनियमित होने के बाद तो महिलाओं की आवाज इस मुद्दे पर और सशक्त हो चली है। धरातली संस्थानो में तोमहिलाओं के लिए आरक्षण है, किंतु इनके लिए कानून बनाने वाले संस्थानों में नहीं। महिला आरक्षण के लिए तर्ककम वजनदार नहीं हैं। महिलाएँ, त्याग, समर्पण, संसाधनों के पुनर्चक्रण (रिसाइक्लिंग) के बेजोड़ उदाहरण सामनेरखती हैं। संसाधनों का इस्तेमाल पुरुषों की तुलना मे महिलाएँ अधिक बेहतर ढंग से करती हैं। पंचायती राजसंस्थानों में 'मैडम सरपंच' के लिए स्थान बनाते समय इन्हीं बिंदुओं पर गंभीरता से विचार हुआ था। अबसंवैधानिक संस्थानों के लिए भी ऐसी व्यवस्था जोरदार ढंग से अनुभव हो रही है। समाज की तरह राजनीति में भीपुरुष वर्चस्व है और वर्चस्व के इस दंभ ने स्त्रियों को बढ़ने नहीं दिया। महिला अपने बल पर कहीं पर खड़ी हो, यहउसे बरदाश्त नहीं होता।

महिलाओं के उत्थान के लिए यह विधेयक आवश्यक है। लेकिन इसमें भी संशय है कि यह सिर्फ आम बिल बनकररह जाएगया महिलाओं को हक दिलाने में कारगर भी होगा। इस बिल के पेश होने के बाद उम्मीद है कि महिलाएंअब आत्मविश्वास के साथ अपने हक की मांग करें। अपने अधिकारों को कानूनी रूप से प्राप्त करने के लिए वे स्वयंआगे आएं। कितने आश्चर्य की बात है कि इतने चुनावों के बाद भी महिलाओं की सत्ता में भागीदारी नगण्य है।

ऊंचे ओहदों पर सिर्फ इक्का-दुक्का महिलाएं मिलती हैं। जब भी महिलाओं को कुछ देने की बात आती है, चाहे वहनौकरी हो, शीर्ष पद हो या उनके अन्य अधिकार, हम उन्हें कृपापात्र बना देते हैं। हम उन्हें उनका हक भी ऐसे देते हैं, जैसे खैरात दे रहे हों। अगर व्यावहारिक रूप से अपने समाज के अंदर ही देखें, तो हम पाते हैं कि महिलाओं कोउनके कानूनी हक देना भी हम गवारा नहीं करते, देते भी हैं, तो एक कृपा के तौर पर। बेटी अगर पिता की संपत्ति मेंअपना हिस्सा मांगती है, तो कहा जाता है कि कैसी बेटी है। लालची है। लोग उस पर उंगलियां उठाते हैं। जबकि यहउसका कानूनी अधिकार है। पर अमूमन समाज में होता यही है कि संपत्ति सिर्फ बेटों में बांट दी जाती है और बेटियोंको 'पराया धन' मानकर उसी दिन घर से अलग कर दिया जाता है, जब उनकी शादी होती है। यही हाल विधवा कोअधिकार देने में है। इसमें भी समाज कोताही करता है। दरअसल, महिलाओं को अधिकार तो चाहिए, लेकिन कृपाके अंतर्गत नहीं, बल्कि उन्हें यह न्याय के अंतर्गत चाहिए। दरअसल, समाज की तरह राजनीति में भी पुरुष वर्चस्वहै और वर्चस्व के इस दंभ ने स्त्रियों को बढ़ने नहीं दिया। महिला अपने बल पर कहीं पर खड़ी हो, यह उसे बरदाश्तनहीं होता। पंचायती राज में महिलाएं ग्राम प्रधान तो बनीं, लेकिन वे कितना स्वतंत्र निर्णय लेती हैं? इस दृष्टि से तोमहिलाओं को 33 प्रतिशत आरक्षण मिल जाता है, तो भी यह नाकाफी है। क्योंकि अभी तक महिलाओं और पुरुषोंकी बराबरी की भागीदारी में बहुत भारी अंतराल है।

महिलाओं को पचास प्रतिशत की भागीदारी मिलनी चाहिए, तभी इस खाई को समतल करने की दिशा में बढ़ा जासकता है। जब महिलाओं को आधा जगत कहा जाता है, सृष्टि ने जब उन्हें बराबरी का हक दिया है, तो हम उन्हेंआधा हिस्सा क्यों नहीं दे सकते? स्त्रियों को कृपाभाजन बनाने की प्रवृत्ति और मानसिकता को त्यागना होगा। सृष्टिका असंतुलन दूर करने के लिए उन्हें उनका उतना हक साधिकार देना होगा, जितना उनके विकास के लिए जरूरीहै। राजनीति में स्त्री को जब भी कोई पद मिलता है, तो उसे या तो पति के दिवंगत होने पर मिलता है या पिता केदिवंगत होने पर। बड़ी से बड़ी सत्तासीन महिलाओं को उनका पद इमोशनल कारणों से मिलता है। अनुग्रह की वजहसे मिलता है। यह स्त्रियों के स्वाभिमान पर चोट है और उनके लिए अपमानजनक है।

स्त्री जब भी अपने अधिकार के लिए आगे आती है, तो उसे वह स्थान नहीं मिलता। वह चाहे राजनीतिक पार्टियों केटिकटों के बंटवारे का मामला हो या फिर नौकरी में आरक्षण का। किसी महिला को महत्वपूर्ण जगह मिल भी गई, तो उसे पुरुषवादी मानसिकता का चतुर्दिक सामना करना पड़ता है। उसे उसी पध्दति के भीतर रहना पड़ता है। वहअपनी आवाज उठाती है, तो उसे महत्वपर्ण जगह से हटा दिया जाता है। किरण बेदी के साथ भी तो यही हुआ। यहस्थिति तब तक बनी रहेगी, जब तक समाज के नजरिये में फर्क नहीं आएगा। समाज का मौजूदा नजरिया तोस्त्रियों को बर्दाश्त न करने वाला है। कन्या भ्रूण हत्या के मामले आते रहते यदि यही सोच पूरे समाज की हो गई, तोउसके अस्तित्व का संकट भी हमारे सामने है। समाज की मानसिकता बदलने की जरूरत है। समाज को बदलने कीपहल भी महिलाओं को ही करनी होगी। महिलाओं को शिक्षित होना पड़ेगा। शिक्षा से साहस आता है।

इसलिए महिलाओं और समाज को भी साहसी होना पड़ेगा। महिलाओं को जोखिम उठाना होगा। आज महिलाओंको 'अच्छी महिला' होने का प्रमाण पत्र लेने के लिए तमाम कष्ट उठाने पड़ते हैं। वे अपने समर्थन के सुरक्षा चक्र मेंघूमती रहती हैं। जाने कितनी रूढ़ियां उनके खिलाफ खड़ी हुई हैं, जो पूर्णत: पुरुषवादी हैं। लेकिन जब हम वृहत्तरसमाज के बारे में सोचते हैं, तो उसकी प्रगति के लिए जरूरी है कि एक भागीदारी तो सुनिश्चित हो। इसके लिएआरक्षण जरूरी है। जहां तक इस विधेयक की बात है, तो संदेह है कि इसे स्वीकृति मिल भी गई, तब भी यहप्रभावपूर्ण तरीके से लागू हो पाएगा। क्योंकि महिलाओं को अधिकार देने की बात आती है, तो उसके पक्ष में कमऔर विपक्ष में बहुसंख्य लोग खड़े हो जाते हैं। कानून हमारे यहां हैं, लेकिन उनकी परिणति क्या होती है? बलात्कारजैसे जघन्य अपराध की एफआईआर तक को प्राथमिकता नहीं दी जाती। सच कहें, तो स्त्री को अधिकार मिलने मेंकानून, कागज और कार्रवाई के बीच बड़े अंतराल हैं। इन अंतरालों को हमें पाटना पड़ेगा। कोई कानून तभी प्रभावीहोता है, जब सदिच्छा से उसे लागू किया जाए।

बाधायें
वर्तमान राजनीतिक समीकरण में रोचक तथ्य यह है कि संप्रग के समर्थन में राजग प्रमुख भाजपा अपना समर्थनलिए खड़ी है। वामदल भी आरक्षण विधेयक के समर्थक हैं। राजद, द्रमुक, पीएमके दलित, पिछड़ा वर्ग औरअल्पसंख्यक महिलाओं के लिए भी आरक्षण चाहता है। सपा भी कोटे में कोटे की पक्षधर है। इस विधेयक के रास्तेमें कई तकनीकी परेशानियाँ हैं क्योंकि यह संविधान में संशोधन करने वाला विधेयक है. ग्यारहवीं लोकसभा मेंपहली बार विधेयक पेश हुआ था तो उस समय उसकी प्रतियां फाड़ी गई थीं. इसके बाद 13वीं लोकसभा में भी तीनबार विधेयक पेश करने का प्रयास हुआ, लेकिन हर बार हंगामे और विरोध के कारण ये पेश नहीं हो सका था. महिला आरक्षण विधेयक एक संविधान संशोधन विधेयक है और इसलिए इसे दो तिहाई बहुमत से पारित कियाजाना ज़रूरी है.

राजनीतिक दल और महिलाएं
महिला मतदाता और महिला प्रत्याशी के साथ एक और बात की चर्चा होती है, वह है राजनीतिक दलों के घोषणापत्रों में महिलाएं। अर्थात पार्टियां महिलाओं के जीवन में कितनी खुशहाली लाने का वादा करती हैं। यह भी सच हैकि महिलाएं घोषणाएं पढकर मतदान नहीं करतीं। बहुत कम महिला मतदाताओं को चुनावी घोषणा का अर्थ पताहै। दरअसल किसी भी पार्टी का घोषणा पत्र उसका ऎसा दस्तावेज होना चाहिए जो समाज के हर क्षेत्र के बारे में पार्टीका दर्शन, दृष्टि और कार्यक्रम प्रस्तुत करे। घोषणा पत्र से मनसा, वाचा, कर्मणा उसका संकल्प प्रकट हो, पर ऎसाहोता कहां है। अधिकांश राजनीतिक दल स्वयं अपने घोषणापत्रों के बारे में विशेष चिंतित नहीं रहते। उन्हें भीमालूम है कि घोषणा पत्र के आधार पर उन्हें वोट नहीं मिलने वाले हैं। जहां तक इन चुनावी घोषणा पत्रों मेंमहिलाओं के लिए की गई घोषणाओं का सवाल है- प्रमुख पार्टी (सत्ताधारी) कांग्रेस के घोषणा पत्र (2009) में सारेके सारे बिन्दु वही रहे जो वर्ष 2004 के घोषणा पत्र में थे। जैसे लोकसभा और विधानसभाओं में आरक्षण पहलीघोषणा है। उसमें साफ लिखा था, "अगला लोकसभा चुनाव महिलाओं के 33 प्रतिशत आरक्षण मिलने के आधारपर ही करवाया जाएगा।" 2009 के चुनावी घोषणा में लिखा था- "लोकसभा और विधानसभा में महिलाओं के लिएएक तिहाई सीटें आरक्षित करने के लिए संविधान में संशोधन की कोशिश की जाएगी।"

दोनों संकल्पों में विषय एक है, आस्था बदली हुई। 2004 के लोकसभा चुनाव में संकल्प था। पांच वर्षों में संकल्पपूरा करने के लिए प्रयास भी नहीं हुआ। 2009 के घोषणा पत्र में "कोशिश करने" की बात लिखी गई । अन्य 4 बिन्दु भी मिलते जुलते हैं। कमाल की बात है कि कांग्रेस के घोषणा पत्रों में महिलाओं के खाते में पांच बिन्दु हीनिश्चित हैं। क्या इतने से महिलाओं की समस्याएं समाप्त हो जाएंगी? सच तो यह है कि महिलाओं की विभिन्नसमस्याओं की ओर विशेष ध्यान ही नहीं दिया गया है। वरना समस्याएं स्थायी कैसे होतीं पाच वर्ष शासन करने केबाद भी लगभग उन्हीं पुराने बिन्दुओं को घोषणा पत्र में डालने की विवशता क्यों पिछली घोषणाओं में से कितनीपूरी हुई, इस बारे में कोई जानकारी नहीं है।

दूसरी प्रमुख राष्ट्रीय पार्टी है भाजपा। इस दल ने भी संसद में महिला आरक्षण को ही प्रथम घोषणा बनाया , परन्तुभाजपा ने महिलाओं की झोली में 14 बिन्दु दिए हैं। पिछले दिनों राजस्थान, म.प्र. और छत्तीसगढ सरकारों द्वारासंचालित महिला लाभकारी योजनाओं को भी केन्द्रीय स्तर पर लेने का वादा किया गया। वहीं लैंगिग समानता केलिए समान नागरिक संहिता बनाने का वादा दुहराया गया। अन्य 12 बिन्दु भी विभिन्न क्षेत्रों में महिलाओं केजीवन को सशक्त बनाने का संकल्प दुहराते हैं। कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी (एम) ने भी अपने घोषणा पत्र में संसद में महिलाआरक्षण को ही प्राथमिकता दी थी। इनके छह बिन्दुओं में आर्थिक विकास के लिए अनुदान, बलात्कार के विरूद्धकानून, दहेज और कन्या भ्रूण हत्या का खात्मा, महिला बजट को बढाना, विधवाओं और महिला द्वारा संचालितपरिवारों को विशेष सुविधा देने के वादे दुहराए गए ।

विपक्ष का काम है कि वह संसद में सत्ता पक्ष को उसके वादों का स्मरण करवाए। एक और बात की ओर ध्यानदिलाना आवश्यक है। महिलाओं की क्षेत्र विशेष की समस्याएं भी होती हैं। अर्थात् उनकी सरकारों से अपेक्षाएं। इसपर विशेष ध्यान नहीं दिया जाता। घोषणा पत्रों के निर्माण के पूर्व महिलाओं की प्रतिनिधियों को विश्वास में नहींलिया जाता। उनसे संवाद ही नहीं होता। फिर तो घोषणाएं हैं, घोषणाओं का क्या जिन महिलाओं को मतदान कामहत्व ही नहीं पता वे घोषणाएं जानने-समझने का अपना अधिकार भी नहीं समझतीं। यह स्थिति बदलनीचाहिए।

घोषणापत्रों के निर्माण के पूर्व महिलाओं की प्रतिनिधियों को विश्वास में नहीं लिया जाता। उनसे संवाद ही नहीहोता। सत्य तो यह है कि महिला आरक्षण की चर्चा केवल दिखावटी है। कोई भी दल नहीं चाहता कि जिनका वे सदासे शोषण करते आए हैं वे उनके साथ आकर खड़ी हो जाए। इसी कारण २० साल से यह विषय मात्र चर्चा में ही है। नाकोई इसका विरोध करता है और ना खुलकर समर्थन। उसको लाने का सार्थक कदम तो बहुत दूर की बात है। उनकोलगता है कि नारी यदि सत्ता में आगई तो उनकी निरंकुशता कुछ कम हो जाएगी, उनकी कर्कशता एवं कठोरता परअंकुश लग जाएगा तथा महिलाओं पर अत्याचार रोकने पड़ेंगें । आज समय की माँग है कि नारी को उन्नत्ति केसमान अवसर मिलें और खुशी-खुशी उसे उसके अधिकार दे दिए जाएँ।

Read Users' Comments (0)

INDIA'S 'POWER': WEAKNESS=VIRTUE, STRENGTH=IMMORALITY

Posted in Labels: , , | 5:30 AM


The uprising in Tibet is the latest in a long series of developments in India’s neighbourhood that has exposed India’s congenital inability and lack of desire to get itself to be counted as even a small player, forget a major one, in the region.

The ongoing protests against Chinese oppression in Tibet have seen India bend twice over backwards like a little nation so that the Chinese are not annoyed at all. All the cacophony about “morality” that accompanies other developments to influence India’s response - national interest be damned - is conspicuous by its almost total absence. This time, it is neither morality nor national interest which is determining India’s official and even media response to what China has been doing in Tibet for 60 years.

This time, it is an unashamed, unacknowledged acknowledgement of the utter relative weakness, not economic but military, that India has allowed itself to sink into vis a vis China. It is that unaddressed asymmetry and the terrifying fear of a Chinese retaliation to forcefully settle their long held claim over Arunachal Pradesh which has forced the country into pushing its lofty moral stances under a very dirty rug,

But, weakness somehow manages to find the strangest of moral ruses. There are voices comparing Tibet with, would you believe it, Kashmir and even the North East to justify the prostration to the Chinese! We conveniently like to forget many inconvenient truths. Had India wanted, for example, it could have claimed Myanmar with nearly the same justification that China has claimed and taken Tibet.

Tibetans do not claim Arunachal Pradesh; the Chinese do, on their behalf! The Dalai Lama has been driven out of his country by the invading Chinese; in Indian Kashmir, Kashmiri Hindus have been driven out by fellow Kashmiri and Pakistani Muslims! But, for the most dishonest of “moral” reasons, we gag the Dalai Lama and praise the Chinese who use the foulest of words for this apostle of peace to avoid talking to him; we pretend that homeless Kashmiri Pandits don’t exist and give enormous respect, time, importance, understanding and sympathy to the masters of AK47 wielding killers fielded by Pakistan to usurp Kashmir.

Last year, when the military junta in powerless Myanmar was facing a revolt from monks, ‘conscience keepers’ of India were up and awake, berating India for not taking the side of the monks. Very few were then concerned that India had already lost much ground to an aggressive and focused China and that any abrupt reaction against the junta would drive Myanmar almost totally into the arms of that country. It did not matter to them that the Chinese were working steadily to get a very easy route through Myanmar into the plains of Assam, to cut off and capture most of Arunachal Pradesh, whenever they decide to, with ease. All that mattered to them was the “morality” of supporting democracy in Myanmar and the unacceptability of supporting military dictatorship. National interest? That is all bunkum, said one illustrated TV personality.

Exactly the opposite happened when the Musharraf, the General responsible for occupying parts of Kargil, overthrew a democratically elected government in a military coup. Then there was no moral outcry, no calls to break ties with the military regime that had launched an attack on India and show solidarity with the forces of democracy. On the contrary, the practical voice which was most heard was that we had to do business with whoever was in power in Pakistan. The moral brigade was in fact the first to forgive the General and begin a long lasting “love affair’” with him. Was all this due to an enlightened understanding of national interest or was it because of something more fundamental and disturbingly so?

Ever since India gained Independence thanks mainly to the moral force of Mahatma Gandhi’s words and actions rather than any conventional force, India has fancied itself as a global moral voice, a sort of continuation of the Mahatma’s legacy. Gandhi’s morality and non violence had no space for “weakness” at all. It was the unusual actuation of great, uncompromising strength which did not need any weapons. Indeed, in retrospect, it is clear that that was the only strength which could have defeated the British; militarily there was just no chance.

In Independent India, unfortunately, somewhere that concept has got seriously distorted. The reality of global power play of nations has simply not been grasped fully in its harsh, violent and ambitious dimensions, despite many rude wake-up calls. There is a peculiar paralysis when it comes to talking about and with strength.

In fact, in India, we weirdly hyphenate strength with immorality; it is not something to be sought or flaunted. Unfortunately, that has become our national ethos. Being macho might be fine for the Americans and the Chinese, but that is not the arrogant path that India should tread. On the flip side, great virtue is associated with weakness, as if only the weak and the meek tread the moral path. Perhaps that is true, for the weak often have little choice, as confronting the strong will lead to only one result. You can keep calling the possession and use of strength by any uncharitable epithet to justify your weakness; if you succumb to it, as India has done almost always done since 1947, except in 1971, the moral part is nothing more than a camouflage to fool you own countrymen and even yourself!

Why has this state come about? Is it because at some level we are still in the mental frame that we got into to drive the British out of the country? Then the moral question was straightforward: the colonial foreigner had no right to rule over this vast land. He knew that too.

However, for an independent country aspiring to be one of the great nations of the world, the questions are many more and far more complex. Morality cannot be the determinator that will make an aggressor see your reason. Nor is it a workable tool to take a practical view of the globe in which countries fight essentially by the rules of the jungle when it comes to the crunch. Only the fittest have survived till now; there is every reason to believe that might will continue to be almost always right in future too.

The Americans know this elementary stuff. So do the Chinese, who are working furiously to ensure that they too get securely into the “right” lane of might which the US has made all its own. Indians, despite being thrice as many as Americans and almost as many as Chinese on this planet, just don’t seem to get it. We want to continue to make believe that we are in a separate lane all of our own and claim that our weak moral lane is the right one which will not be challenged by those in the lanes of might! This strategy is probably the only practical one which will work for, say, Fiji, Mauritius, Tonga, Cuba and the like. Not for a country that is almost a sub continent.(जरा सोचिये )_

This raises another question. Does India have no world view commensurate with its size and strategic importance? Has India not yet woken up to its role, responsibility and power as India the nation? Does it still continue to think small and react like those hundreds of pre-British era kingdoms whose tiny world view virtually ended at the boundaries of their little kingdoms? Or does India still view itself as the age old spiritual and cultural entity it has been rather than the huge political reality that it is today in a world whose map has been, and will continue to be, shaped by power and force, no matter what Indian “delusionists” may tell you?

India’s internal political, bureaucratic and social dynamics are clearly dominated by forces trying to cut up the country into smaller and smaller “estates” and groups whose vested interests they champion as supreme, no matter what happens to the country. The few voices trying to take a larger, holistic national view are invariably drowned out by the force, even blackmail, of small pressure groups fiercely protecting their small turfs.

That is another reason why there is very little serious national political debate, awareness and interest in matters related to foreign policy and India’s engagement with its neighbours. Whatever little there is, is concerned mostly about the effect that any action or response will have on the many constituencies that we have created in babudom and the society. This is the effete and self destructive “soft power” that India projects to the world, garnished with immoral morality.

India is the prime real estate that has been most invaded and attacked in the history of all of mankind. It should, therefore, have logically been most alive to and concerned about the challenges that it faces or may face in future to its standing, interests and even existence. It was the country's economic prosperity and its riches that had repeatedly attracted invaders in the past. Emboldened by the total lack of organized vision and strength, and the prevalence of petty and destructive internal divisions, they were able to achieve easy victories, often with a smaller force.

With so many historical lessons to learn from, including those received after Independence, India should have been fully committed to addressing the mistakes of the past so that history does not repeat itself. But, it is a matter of serious concern that nearly the same weaknesses continue to mark national response to the challenges that the country faces from its aggressive and hostile neighbours, forget the rest of the world.

When are we going to learn what we should have learnt many years ago? Even as China demonstrates its unflinching resolve to aggressively protect its national interest and bullies us into meek submission, there is nothing to suggest that we are even thinking about where we have gone wrong to find ourselves so belittled again, and where we should go from here.

The paralysis appears to be almost complete and irreversible. Perhaps it will take the US to get India to show some movement and spine befitting its size and potential strength. It will do that not because of any moral love for India, but because it will see for India in America’s national interest what India should have seen on its own!

Read Users' Comments (0)

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)