Matter of contempt
Listen to the scientists
Trade winds from Quebec
|
Matter of contempt
For the second time within a few weeks, the Supreme Court has taken umbrage over comments relating to its pronouncements.
On Monday, it expressed dissatisfaction over the tone of the affidavits filed by Narmada Bachao Andolan activist Medha Patkar and writer Arundhati Roy.
Earlier, Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit had come close to being hauled up for contempt of court during the traffic problems caused by the withdrawal of a large number of buses in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive on pollution. Ms Dikshit
is not the only chief minister to have run the risk of being booked for contempt. Kalyan Singh was actually jailed for a day for having defied the court on the preservation of the status quo at Ayodhya.
In some respects, the Ayodhya case was, and is, of considerable importance in this context because both at the time of the Babri masjid demolition and also at present, there are elements in Kalyan Singh’s former party who have little hesitation in
asserting that the judiciary can have no say in matters of faith. It is clear that when a decision — whether the construction of a temple or of a dam — goes against the wishes of a committed group, there is a possibility of some among them testing the
limits of the rule of contempt. Evidently, this is a trend which cannot be encouraged because it may bring into disrepute one of the few institutions which is still held in high regard. Any challenge to its prestige is unfortunate at a time when some of
the other wings of the establishment, including the political class, have gone down in public estimation.
It is precisely because the other ‘pillars’ of the system no longer seem as dependable as before that the judiciary has had to intervene in areas which are outside its special field. Not infrequently, it does so at the behest of harassed citizens who have
found that their complaints to the civic authorities fall on deaf ears. Hence, the judicial directives on the fuel to be used by buses and the cleaning up of the Yamuna, among other things. But the problem is that once the judiciary steps outside its given
area, it also comes up against groups with conflicting views, such as those, for instance, who would like Delhi’s master plan to be modified as opposed to those who are against any tampering. In other words, it becomes embroiled in the dust and grime of
everyday life. Since the gulf between this new field and the
judiciary’s original domain is obvious, the rules of contempt have to be applied with great caution.
Listen to the scientists
Despite HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi’s belligerent attitude in dealing with intellectual dissent, on two counts he stands exposed.
First, his charge that the Marxists are the sole agents provocateurs targeting his policies has proved to be pure hyperbole.
And second, when it comes to the scientific community’s opposition to a series of retrograde proposals being forcibly pushed down the throat of the Indian academia, it is obvious that Mr Joshi cares two hoots. He is hell-bent on bulldozing his warped,
one-dimensional agenda into the nation’s centres of learning. In the process he has substantiated the belief that the BJP-led central government, and the HRD ministry in particular, has scant respect for democratic transparency or pluralist dissent.
By stonewalling scientific opinion, Mr Joshi has once again denigrated the rationalist, modernist and liberal spectrum in India. Several scientists have criticised the new courses in astrology and Vedic rituals proposed by the UGC. None of these eminent
scientists are remotely connected with the reds-under-the-bed phobia which stalks Mr Joshi. Jayant Narlikar is no Marxist. He is an internationally acclaimed astrophysicist whose contribution to Indian science is beyond measure. In a letter to the UGC, he
has said that the move to set up departments in Vedic astrology in 24 universities will actually take us “backwards to medieval times”.
“Numerous studies have shown that astrology is not a science. Neither its basic assumptions nor its predictions conform to the rigorous discipline that science demands,” the letter said. The astrophysicist’s appeal has also been signed by his colleagues at
the Pune-based Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, suggesting a wider consensus among the scientific community. More than 100 scientists have demanded the resignation of UGC chairman Hari Gautam. Besides, it has been pointed out that in
1975, 186 scientists from all over the world and 19 Nobel laureates (including Indian S. Chandrashekhar) had declared that “the time has come to challenge directly and forcefully the pretentious claims of astrological charlatans”. Clearly, Mr Joshi is
adamant in his agenda of ‘operation saffronisation’ in education, history and science. It’s time Parliament and the civil society stop this blatant violation of democratic ethos enshrined in our Constitution.
Trade winds from Quebec
For President George W. Bush, the Quebec declaration committing all American nations other than Cuba to forming a regional trade agreement by 2006 is more than just a diplomatic milestone.
There is also a sense of personal accomplishment: a son finishing a task initiated by his father a decade ago. The proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas will be the world’s largest trading bloc, spanning economies whose worth totals $ 11 trillion. After
Quebec, the issue is not whether the FTAA will come into existence but rather what shape it will take.
Two factors will work in favour of a liberal agreement. First is the relative success of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Many Latin American countries have noted how Mexico’s economy has boomed following its joining NAFTA. All of them would like
guaranteed access to the US market, something more likely with a regional trade agreement. Second is a general lack of opposition. The biggest stumbling block has been Brazil, which had ambitions of forming its own trading bloc. Washington wrecked this by
wooing Brazil’s neighbours with bilateral trade agreements. More problematic is whether Washington will secure the authority to negotiate such an agreement from Congress.
The key will be bridging the Republican-Democratic divide over labour and environmental standards in an FTAA treaty.
Quebec has global implications. The US and the EU are aware that the coming WTO conference in Qatar could mark the kickoff of a new round of world trade talks. Both sides are lining up support on various trade issues. The EU’s agricultural commissioner,
for example, was recently in India to sound out New Delhi’s views. The Quebec declaration puts many countries in the US net. Expect the tempo of international trade to quicken. Quebec should serve as a warning to New Delhi. India needs to iron out its
trade positions and sign up more overseas support before the coming WTO conference.
|
|
|
