The New Nation - Internet Edition

Truth Commission-a welcome approach

THE Council of Advisers has approved the creation of a Truth and Accountability Commission, providing corruption suspects with an avenue to avoid imprisonment in exchange for confessions and surrender of their illegally earned wealth or the equivalent amount in cash to the state. The commission is being created to curb corruption and reduce the massive load of graft cases through quick adjudication within 30 days of filing. All citizens, other than those already convicted of corruption or charged with such cases, will have recourse to the commission. The commission will hear case appeals within 14 days of submission and deliver its verdict in 30 days. Failure to comply with commission's rulings will result in five years' imprisonment.

It is a welcome decision. The idea did emerge last year as an alternative for dealing with graft cases and graft suspects to give the latter opportunities to admit to their offences and to be instantly penalised monetarily instead of going through prolonged legal processes and convictions by courts. People convicted by the commission may be barred for five years from contesting in elections to any public office like Parliament, local government bodies, professional organisations and boards of financial institutions. But they will not be sent to suffer jail term.

The commission will comprise three persons, with a chairman and two members and have a tenure of five months. The chairman and members of the commission will be selected from retired chief justices, retired appellate division judges, former military officials with ranks of at least major general, prominent citizens who excelled in their professions, and retired secretary-level government officials.

The commission, however, should not be made a frightening body which the people would not dare appear before. It should be such an institution where people would feel like coming at ease to relieve themselves of the other option, and get a consensual arrangement of justice.

Yet people should feel compelled to come to the commission and plea bargain their cases to escape prison terms by depositing their ill-gotten income to the national exchequer. In an overwhelming situation, such commissions were set up in many developed countries. The idea is to make quick but consensual justice available to avoid complications of appeal, etc found in normal criminal justice system everywhere.

In our country ,the need for Truth Commission is specially felt for quick disposal of corruption-related allegations against business people for restoring much needed economic activities. We hope to see business people coming forward boldly to take advantage of the lenient view being taken in respect of the offences of ill-gotten wealth.

Managing ecologically critical zones

AS reported in the print media, wildlife in the areas declared 'ecologically critical' remain threatened because of indiscriminate exploitation and pollution of natural resources. People are still unaware of restriction on movement to and from the eight critical areas including Cox's Bazar-Teknaf Beach, St. Martin's Island and the Sundarbans as the government under the Environment Conservation Act of 1995 declared them 'critical areas' needing to preserve ecology and biodiversity. A project is on in four out of eight such areas in cooperation with UNDP-Global Environment Facility, but indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources is continuing in those places. The Cox's Bazar-Teknaf Beach, the world's longest, is the habitat of around 200 types of local and 81 species of migratory birds including threatened ones. St. Martin's Island is country's only coral island, which has about 153 varieties of fauna, 157 varieties of mangrove, 66 kinds of coral, 187 types of bivalves, 240 types of marine fish and other marine lives.

According to scientists and experts, such ecologically critical areas are the habitats of many species that are considered either threatened or rare. Tree felling, fishing, disturbing and polluting activities in the natural habitats of wildlife are continuing indiscriminately though the Environment Conservation Act strictly prohibits such activities. Experts say, there are many other places which should also be declared critical areas, but it is not possible for the shortage of resources to at least implement the provisions of the Environment Conservation Act.

Indoor air pollution- the silent killer

Shanta Dutta

We usually think of air pollution as being outdoors, but the air in our house or office could also be polluted. A person may inhale more air pollutants with each breath in indoor than that of outside. Sources of indoor pollution include- biological contaminants like mold and pollen , smoke from fuel burning, tobacco smoke, household products and pesticides, gases such as radon and carbon monoxide, materials used in the building such as asbestos, formaldehyde and lead.Indoor air problems can be subtle and do not always produce easily recognized impacts on health. Different conditions are responsible for indoor air pollution in the rural and the urban areas.

In the developing countries like Bangladesh, it is the rural areas that face the greatest threat from indoor pollution, where people continue to rely on traditional fuels such as firewood, charcoal, and cowdung for cooking and heating. Concentration ofindoor pollutants in household that burn traditional fuels are alarming. Burning such fuels produces large amount of smoke and other air pollutants in the confined space of the home, resulting in high exposure. Women and children are the groups most vulnerable as they spend more time indoors and are exposed to the smoke. In 1992, the world bank designated indoor air pollution in the developing countries as one of the four most critical global environmental problems. Daily averages of pollutant level emitted indoors often exceed current WHO guidelines and acceptable levels. Although many hundreds of separate chemical agents have been identified in the smoke from bio-fuels, the four most serious pollutants are particulates, carbon monoxide, polycyclicc organic matter, and formaldehyde. Unfotunately, little monitoring has been done in rural and poor urban indoor environments in a manner that is statistically rigorous.

In urban areas, exposure to indoor air pollution has increased due to a variety of reasons, including the construction of more tightly sealed buildings, reduced ventilation, the use of synthetic materials for building and furnishing and the use of chemical products and the use of household care products. Indoor air pollution can begin with the building or be drawn in from outdoors.

Other than nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead, there are a number of other pollutants that affect the air quality in an enclosed space. One of the most harmful indoor air pollutants is volatile organic compounds originate mainly from solvents and chemicals. The main indoor sources of these compounds are perfumes, hair sprays, furniture polish, glues, air freshners, moth repelents, wood preservatives and many other products in the house. The main health effect is the imitation of eye, nose and throat. In more severe cases, there may be headaches, nausea and loss of coordination. In the long term, some of the pollutants are suspected to damage to the liver and other parts of the body. Another most serious indoor air pollutant is tobacco smoke that generates a wide range of harmful chemicals and is known to cause cancer.

It is well known that, passive smoking causes a wide range of problems to the passive smoker (the person who is in the same room with a smoker and is not himself a smoker) ranging from burning eyes, nose, and throat irritation to cancer, bronchitis, severe asthms and a decrease in lung function. Biological pollutants include pollen from plants, mite, hair from pets, fungi, parasites and some bacteria. Most of them are allergens and can cause asthma, hay fever and other allergic diseases. The chemical that causes most people difficulty is Formaldehyde, a gas that comes mainly from carpets, particles boards and insulation foam. It causes dizziness, irritation to the eyes and nose, and may cause allergies in some people. Radon gas is another harmfun pollutant that is emitted naturally by the soil. Due to modern houses having poor ventilation, it is confined inside the house causing harm to the dwellers.

Sick building syndrome occurs when several people are affected, but no specific source of the illness is found. Indoor air quality problems usually only cause discomfort, and most people feel better as soon as they eliminate the source of the pollution. However, some pollutants can cause diseases that show up much later, such as respiratory diseases or cancer. In order to prevent indoor air pollution some necessary stepes should be taken such as- to ban smoking or limit it to well ventilated areas, to install efficint chimneys for wood burning stoves, to increase intake of outside air, to use adjustable fresh-air vents for work places, circulate building's air through rooftop, to change indoor air more frequently, to use less polluting substitutes for harmful cleaning agents, paints and other productsetc. In private homes it is better to avoid carpets, furnishing fabrics, wallpapers etc.

Human beings spend approximately 80% of their time indoors; thus the degree of contamination of the indoor air is of considerable concern as well. So, it is important to make sure that our buildings are well-ventilated and eliminating pollutants can improve the quality of our indoor air.

Pakistan-India relations: Beyond non-confrontation

Nasim Zehra

THE last round of the fourth composite dialogue has ended on a high note. In engaging Pakistan's new government the Indian delegation found that there is more continuity than change in the newly elected government's India policy.

This would be in contrast with the sea change that occurred in Indian policy towards an Indo-US nuclear deal after the Congress took over.

The BJP having laid the foundation for the Indo-US nuclear deal but then also having lost the elections to the Congress and its allies, began politically lynching Congress for carrying forward the nuclear deal policy the BJP itself had authored!

Even on India's Pakistan policy, the BJP has been tough on Congress which has not been as bold as the BJP in its Pakistan policy. The continuity in Islamabad's policy flows from a strategic consensus in Pakistan that dispute resolution and genuine cooperation with India is in Pakistan's own interest.

Other than an overall review of the current state of bilateral

relations the two interlocutors agreed to give counsellor access to Indian and Pakistani citizens taken in the other's country. Easing visa regime was discussed and also the need to improve the conditions for bilateral trade was discussed. Interestingly cement now constitutes a significant Pakistani export to India.

With several million tons of cement shortage projected over the next decade India is now a keen buyer of Pakistani cement. Currently 15 Pakistani cement companies are registered with Indian authorities as exporters. Fauji Cement

interestingly is one of the three Pakistani companies that are regularly exporting cement to India.

The fact that its ownership lies with Fauji Foundation prompted the wise quip from an active participant of the bilateral dialogue "see how times have changed; now it's the Pakistan army that is helping build India!"

To facilitate cement import Indians are seeking improvement in Pakistan-India rail links so as to import cement through rail and not road. Currently, cement tracks are parked at the Lahore border in the no-man's land and hundreds of tons of cement is transferred by labourers into Indian trucks.

Trade between Pakistan and India is on the increase. Official figure this year may cross the 1.5 billion dollar mark. There is a new look and some new substance to the Pakistan-Indian relations. With Delhi and Islamabad having tried wars, mini-wars, subversion, advocating international intervention, the two has concluded dialogue to be the most feasible route for conflict avoidance and dispute resolution. Having experienced the heavy costs of confrontation Pakistan and India are on an irreversible path towards non-confrontation.

While those state institutions in the two countries that are equipped and trained to use sabotage as a policy tool must still at opportune moments attempt subversion against the 'adversary,' the main thrust of overt policy that flows from major policy-making and policy implementation institutions including security institutions is non-confrontation. The signs are plenty. For example contrary to past practice, after the recent tragic blasts in the Indian city of Jaipur, Delhi refrained from promptly blaming Pakistan.

Similarly, according to Delhi's claims skirmishes along the LoC took place and left one Indian dead. To discuss this a flag meeting of Pakistan-Indian military representatives has been requested by the Indians.

The context and the content of this relationship are two separate elements. The extent to which outstanding bilateral disputes and the crucial trilateral dispute Jammu and Kashmir, which heavily contribute towards the context of the relationship mark zero progress towards resolution, the relationship context will be a deterrent towards complete normalisation. The content of Pakistan-India ties will remain limited.

Against the backdrop of sixty years of active hostility that followed the creation of the two states, the prevailing subtext of distrust and cunning, is not surprising. Only the causes of this subtext have to be addressed.

There is no inevitability about the end to this sub-text which acts as a major constraining factor in the relations. Distrust and cunning do not simply evaporate. These must be pushed out by the force of more a more positive dynamic that only greater bilateral engagement and enhanced effort at dispute resolution may unleash. On dispute resolution only minimal progress has been made. Third party i.e. World Bank intervention has helped initial resolution of the Baghliar dam. Meanwhile close naval cooperation, involving the personnel of the two navies travelling on each other's naval vessels, has helped to complete a mutual acceptable Sir Creek survey. Not much beyond this has been achieved.

The inability of the two countries to solve the Siachin dispute is a case in point. Almost twenty years ago an amicable settlement, documented in the form of a draft statement, was arrived at between the defence secretaries of the two countries. Siachin dispute sprung up after Delhi sent its troops to occupy a hitherto unoccupied portion of the glacier on the claim that Pakistani troops were about to occupy it.

Indian politics and specifically Rajiv Gandhi's political compulsions, as he shared them with the then Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, prevented the finalisation of the settlement agreement. Subsequently, Kargil, Pakistan's blundering response to Siachin drove a wedge between the two security forces. Mutual distrust deepened.

In 2004 the Vajpayee- Musharraf led breakthrough led to the revival of the composite dialogue. It had raised hopes for an early settlement of Siachin. Almost half a decade later Siachin seems to have slipped in cold storage. Pakistan's response to India's demand that the presence of its troops be authenticated at the point of 1983 Indian occupation has been reasonable. In the troop withdrawal timetable the Indian troop presence will be shown at the point of occupation. But post Kargil India seems to need a guarantee that a Kargil type adventure will not be repeated by Pakistan. How can this be guaranteed? Can it be? First distrust within the two security establishments, borne off the wars and mini-wars, is mutual. Second distrust will deplete if best possible moves for dispute settlement are made. While the concerns of the Indian army which illegally occupies Siachin and initially suffered a disastrous setback in Kargil, must be factored in by Delhi, its views cannot trump all else.

The stalling on Siachin dispute illustrates the indispensable factor i.e. top leadership's commitment, for genuine Pakistan-India peace and cooperation. While technical elements details including legality, security considerations and historical are relevant in dispute resolution the Pakistan-India experience reiterates the known fact that all of these are ultimately vulnerable to subjective interpretation.

Ultimately what interpretation is accepted depends on what the top political leadership seeks through bilateral dialogue.

For example it took the far-sightedness of the Vajpayee's leadership to agree on cross LoC movement minus the passport - a demand that a section of Indian bureaucrats consistently made. Similarly in Pakistan then General Parvez Musharraf supported the cross LoC movement despite majors reservations among bureaucrats.

In Pakistan the procrastination on Siachin can be interpreted as either Delhi's proclivity for the 'jungle rule' - the strong will have his way or that control amounts to near ownership!

Unless India's political leadership, like its predecessor, leads India towards dispute resolution, the benefits of non-confrontation will remain restricted. Some of the other areas in which progress has been inexcusably slow has been the opening up of banks on the basis of reciprocity.

On the crucial trilateral issue of Kashmir three specific factors have yet to be dealt with. First, the implementation of the bilateral agreement on cross-LoC movement of people and goods. Hardly any goods move across the LoC and the long drawn out clearance procedures make peoples' movement very slow. Second some movement on the Musharraf proposals calling for self-governance and joint management as an interim settlement, which was bilaterally agreed upon, must take place with Kashmiri consent.

Third and the most crucial, there is still no framework drawn up within which Pakistan, India and the Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC can participate in a political dialogue aimed at working towards a solution acceptable to the principal party to the dispute i.e. the Kashmiris. The APHC and the Hizbul Mujahideen still remain excluded from any solution-seeking effort.

On the ground, the Western and Indian media reports on Jammu and Kashmir continue to document human rights violations by Indian security forces, the missing persons and unnamed graves of thousands of unknowns, increase in deployment of Border Security Forces, increase in militant activity, boycott of the September polls by the APHC, skirmishes along the LoC etc. None of this is reason for complacency for Delhi or for Islamabad and for indeed the Kashmiris; it spells continued suffering and absence of peace and security. Immediate movement on some aspects of the Kashmir dispute is needed to make all three parties have a stake in the dialogue process.

Clearly, for the fifth dialogue, that the two governments are likely to begin in Delhi in June, to be more productive, there needs to be more focus on dispute settlement. Progress on other elements of the context including a more lenient visa regime and easier information exchange is also essential and perhaps likely.

(Nasim Zehra is an Islamabad -based national security strategist)

Will the real Congress please stand up?

Barkha Dutt

THERE'S an unsolved mystery in the Congress party, and it's called Arjun Singh. Party old timers may gossip in private (and now, increasingly in public) about why he hasn't been parcelled out to a Governor's residence yet. But like the perfect advertisement for Fevicol, he's glued to his chair - immovable, unshakeable and always unembarrassed.

What's even more mystifying is why Sonia Gandhi - whose frosty disapproval for the man is now apparent - allows him to stay on and treat India's education system as if it were a tract of land in Madhya Pradesh, and he, its undisputed Thakur.

You may ask why I single out Arjun Singh in a party where several other hangers-on from the past cling like cobwebs to the top leadership. It's because, in many ways, he represents all that the Congress in the 21st century just cannot afford to be - a medieval party of courtiers and kings, where palace intrigue determines fortunes and fate. And because when his sickeningly sycophantic flattery of the Gandhi family is offered as wily compensation for his undermining of the Prime Minister's authority, the Congress needs to ask itself whether this is the way, it wants to be perceived.

To be fair, the party was uncharacteristically quick in its public putdown of Arjun Singh. Within days of his suggesting that Rahul Gandhi should be Prime Minister came the official spokesperson's reprimand that there "was no vacancy for the post of Prime Minister". In a refreshingly sharp health warning to all the old yes-men of yesteryear, the statement went on to say that Sonia Gandhi and her son were not interested "in an environment of sycophancy".

For anyone else, this should have been more than enough. But not so for the man who famously led a campaign against P V Narasimha Rao when he was Prime Minister in the 90s and Manmohan Singh was his Finance Minister.

As a warhorse of old-style battles for one-upmanship, Arjun Singh knows that even sheer nuisance value can have its own Machiavellian impact in Indian politics. So, emerging from a meeting with the Congress President, where he is widely believed to have been told to shut up and sit quiet, he repeated his chant for Rahul-as-PM for the waiting media, and defiantly muttered that he felt "no need to take back" his words.

Since then, we have seen a bizarre public spectacle play out, with the HRD Minister swinging wildly between servility and sulks. One day, he proclaims hurtfully that loyalty today is "judged by very narrow terms", and rants against the end of "inner party democracy". The next day he issues furious denials and dramatic, over-the-top pledges of loyalty to "the remaining members of the family for as long as I live". And suddenly, his contradictions set off a strange chain reaction within the party (perhaps exactly what he planned for). In a crazed competitive bid for 'loyalty', every Congress leader of consequence joins the cacophony.

Except for the top two leaders, that is. True to style, the Prime Minister remains benign and refuses to get drawn into a controversy that has been designed to downsize him. And Sonia Gandhi, also true to form, makes her displeasure known, not by words, but by a cold stare that freezes him out. Headlines capture both the snub and her pointed praise of the Prime Minister for leaving his "personal imprint" on India's education policies.

But if only that were entirely true: no matter whether you are for or against the OBC quotas it is ludicrous that the policy was born from the womb of political blackmail. Arjun Singh made a unilateral public pronouncement on the quotas in a year when the Congress had to face five state elections. The die was cast, and an entire political establishment was forced into false consensus on one of the most contentious decisions in recent years.

The irony is that Arjun Singh stands for everything that Rahul Gandhi is trying to change within the Congress. You may accuse Rahul of trying to run the Congress more like a corporate firm than a political party; and you may even brand him as politically naïve, a sincere technocrat, rather than a neta. But the fact is that while Singh may fall over himself to push the 37-year-old as PM, he is, in fact, the very antithesis of the party the younger Gandhi wants to build.

Take the recent and rare reality contest created by the party's young MPs to lure people like us into politics. One of the requisites for applying is that you can't have a political sugar daddy.

In other words, the attempt is to subvert the culture of political patronage and create a competitive, performance-based point of entry into politics. Its first winner, 31-year-old Anil Choudhary, was just declared the head of the Delhi Congress after many strenuous rounds of interviews and a final test in which he had to score 92 per cent! Do you think he looks at Arjun Singh now and wonders what he's got himself into?

For a party stepping into an election year with a younger, fresher, leadership at its helm, it is no longer enough to merely snub Arjun Singh. Erstwhile shadow boxers like him may have had their uses in the murky politics of a different era. But in a self-confident, post-liberalisation India, their style of petty politicking has outlived its expiry date.

Arjun Singh can take solace in the fact that he is the only Cabinet minister to have a road named after him. But, like many others, who have roads, buildings and cities, named after them, he belongs to the past. Aaj ka Arjun is now an old film. It's time that the Congress woke up to the anachronism.

(Celebrated Indian television star and host Barkha Dutt is Managing Editor of NDTV 24x7.)