Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

Everyone knows that prizes are given in recognition of achievements. That these are also given to encourage others to aim higher in their areas of endeavour is also well known. These considerations are seen at their best in prize giving ceremonies in schools. Here the minds are young, alert, more maleable and amenable to manipulation for engendering the competitive spirit. His first experience of prize giving ceremony was in Faridpur. Even though he stood first in all previous schools he did not receive any prize from school authorities, because they did not have the tradition. In Faridpur Zila school he got bagfull of prizes in different categories, like best student, most punctual, regular attendance, best essay, best debator etc.
   The prizes given were all books. He had already become fond of books, thanks to his friends in Jessore. So he looked forward eagerly to receiving books as prizes. What he received was, if not a shock, a great disappointment. He was given books alright, but those were all on religion written by obscure authors. Their appearances were most uninviting, what with garish colours and tawdry design. He did not read any of those books but preserved them, as sportsmen (and women) display trophies won in showcases. The books that he received as prizes were meant to be shown, with the label mentioning his name and not to be read, he consoled himself.
   As a debate champion he was selected to participate in the provincial debate competition to be held in Dacca in the third week of February. Besides him, Mohammad Asafuddowla (Asaf Bhai, who later became a member of civil service of Pakistan) was also selected to take part in the debate competition. Asaf Bhai would debate in the English language category, while he would take part in the debate in Bengali. Asaf Bhai had already made his mark as a brilliant student, singer and debater.
   Both of them were all agog over the prospect of meeting their rivals from other schools in the province. As they were preparing to leave for Dacca the news burst, like an explosion. There was firing on students by police in the streets of Dacca. Law and order situation had become abnormal and further disturbances were apprehended. In the circumstances, he was advised not to go to Dacca. At first he felt greatly disappointed. Then details of the incident leading to firing poured in. Like others the details greatly agitated his mind and made him feel indignant. Perhaps there were two reasons for this instantaneous reactions. Firstly, there is an invisible bond of brotherhood among students which lies dormant in normal times but comes to life in times of danger and threat from outside. That is why suddenly the feeling overtook him that he was not just an individual student but part of a bigger community, sharing the same life and experience. When some of them are in danger, others could not remain silent or neutral. Secondly, the issue over which the firing incident had taken place was also close to his heart as it was to others. It was about the recognition of Bengali, their mother tongue, as a state language of Pakistan. Mother tongue touches sentiment which is atavistic and deeply ingrained. It makes one passionate with a love that is beyond reasoning. The love for mother tongue is next to loving one’s mother. Its sanctity and status cannot be allowed to be sullied or dishonoured, brazenly and with contempt. Mr. Jinnah and his cabinet colleague had just done that.
   While in Jessore he first became aware of the language issue. That it would move forward and become a full-fledged movement could not be foreseen by him and perhaps even by many adults. But it was a fateful day when in January 1948 Mr. Jinnah declared that “Urdu and Urdu alone shall be the state language of Pakistan”. It was not a statesman like speech or bespoke farsightedness. Mr. Jinnah knew very well that he was speaking about a language that was spoken by the majority of the population of Pakistan. Moreover, it was an internationally recognised language, Tagore having introduced it to the wider world through the Nobel Prize that was awarded to him. There is little doubt that Mr. Jinnah had scant regard for Bangalis and for their culture. He came to visit East Pakistan after over six months, even though it was the largest province. What is more, he came with a biased mind against Bangalis. But unfortunately, similar was the case with most of the leaders who represented East Pakistan in the central govt. Khawja Nazimuddin was a Urdu speaking man and spoke in support of Mr. Jinnah over the language issue. Others remained silent perhaps for fear of annoying Mr. Jinnah. Only Kamini Kumar Dutta from Comilla spoke boldly, for Bengali in the Constituent Assembly. But he was not a political heavyweight and moreover, as a Hindu, his motives appeared suspect to West Pakistanis. He was killed by Pakistan Army in 1971.
   Mr. Jinnah ruled, as long as he was in good health, like an autocrat and thought he could ride roughshod over the sentiments of Bangalis. He did not take the Bengali students into account. That they would defy him and rise up in protest was beyond his imagination. Unwittingly, he gave birth to a movement that ultimately led to the break-up of Pakistan. The Bangali students of East Pakistan were not against Pakistan. Most of them had supported its creation and rejoiced when it was born. In 1948, when Mr. Jinnah made the declaration at first in Curzon Hall and later in Dacca Race Course maidan, there was no organised students party or movement, except for students with left-leaning ideology. Mr. Jinnah sowed the seed of a movement that was spearheaded by students of all persuasions. It is no coincidence that the leadership for the movement for a free and independent Bangladesh also came from students. From these historical experience it is apparent that Politicians cannot plunge headlong into a struggle that has a long-term goal and where forces operate in a bigger arena. That is why the two movements, language movement and the war of independence for Bangladesh, have become intertwined with students playing pivotal role. Needlessly to say, these musings came much later in his life and what has been said above is based on hindsight.
   In February 1952 he became a student activist for a few days. He boycotted classes in the school in protest along with other students. For the protest marches and demonstration following the firing in Dacca on 21st February, the student leaders of Rajendra college played an important role. They contacted students in all the schools and motivated them to join the movement in support of the greater movement for the recognition of Bengali as a state language. The teachers of their school tried to dissuade them from abandoning classes and joining procession. But they did not look very unhappy or annoyed when students disobeyed them. After all, they too, were Bangalis.
   He remembers the tall and fair looking student leader from Rajendra College who came to contact and invite them to join the procession. He was either the General Secretary or the Vice President of the college students union and had a name that ended with Imam. He had appeared in the lead role of the drama. ‘Tipu Sultan’ at the cinema hall, which doubled as the theatre also. That was the first time he saw him. After the February agitation was over the student leader used to come to the school after classes were over, to indoctrinate them in Marxist ideology. He was not very keen about political matters and though fascinated by the way the student leader talked, he was not swayed one way or the other. Later, he sometimes saw him walking with a fair looking girl, going across their football field. He only saw him at intervals, on a few occasions and in different situations but his personality left an indelible impression in his mind. He epitomized the image and character of a rebel who was also romantic. Or is it that the two characteristics are actually the same?
   Asaf Bhai later told him that he had gone to Dacca, taking all risks, to participate in the debate. He was surprised that inspite of the deaths and agitation by students, the debate competition took place. Later he would realise that it could not be otherwise. The Govt. of the day, besieged and challenged by students, had to show that normalcy prevailed. Asaf Bhai told of Kamal Hossain and Mokammel Hoque who had also participated in the debate. Asaf Bhai also gave a first head account of what happened in Dacca on 21st February. The Govt. had declared section 144 (his roll number in matric exam!) so that students could not bring out procession towards the Provincial Assembly whose session was on. But students defied that ban and brought out procession as per the decision of the Students Action Committee. The non-Bangali superintendent of police of Dacca ordered police to open fire, which was later declared as legal by the non-Bangali District magistrate. The Provincial Govt. and the Assembly had all Bangalis as minister and members. But real power was exercised by bureaucrats and they were almost all non-Bangalis. The chief minister of East Pakistan, Mr. Nurul Amin, had the shoulder all the blame for the firing. He did not give orders but neither could he prevent firing. The buck stopped at his office. The animus against him was so much that his official residence was later converted into an Institute for the development of Bangali language after Muslim League was overthrown from power. Asaf Bhai told him that firing took place between the western part of Dacca Medical College and Jagannath Hall (the seat of Provincial Assembly). A Shahid Minar was erected overnight at the spot where three students died. It was demolished by the Govt. immediately. The present Shahid Minar stands on the same place with an abstract construction depicting a mother figure blessing her sons.
   In Faridpur nothing untoward happened. The procession went through the town evoking sympathy and support. It gradually became longer as not only students but ordinary people also joined spontaneously. The roads under the feet of thousands trembled and red dust swirled high above the ground, creating a gossamer thin screen. The booming sound of full-throated slogans rent the sky. For a day the sleepy little town of Faridpur changed from its languid and laid back persona. On that day, it becomes a part of Dacca, resonating its turmoil and echoing the note of tragedy and triumph. He loved Faridpur for its quiet and simple appearance and now he loved it more for keeping abreast with what was happening in the far away capital city. February 1952 was his coming-of- age experience. In a way, it was so for Faridpur town also.

TODAY, the world is pumping more oil than ever before. At 82 million barrels a day, crude supply just about matches demand. Since last July, crude prices have stubbornly stayed above the $40 a barrel mark, thanks to a combination of factors — galloping demand in China, supply disruptions in Nigeria and Venezuela, slow production recovery in Iraq, speculative deals by traders and a terror premium prompted by attacks on Saudi oil installations.
   This year, crude prices have again risen by 25 per cent over last year and are now cruising above $50 to a barrel, buoyed by increased U.S. and European demand for inventory build-up. OPEC — the producers’ cartel — is furiously pumping 27.7 million barrels of crude a day, its highest in 25 years. Saudi Arabia, the queen bee in the OPEC cartel, can no longer swing prices by fine-tuning output to demand movements. With spare capacity at historic lows, OPEC does not have the wherewithal to cool the market. Ali Naimi, Saudi Oil Minister, ominously hinted that prices would continue to stay high.
   
   Alarm bells
   Alarm bells have started ringing in oil-importing countries, partly because of the spiralling oil prices and partly over fears of a potential supply disruption. The Paris-based International Energy Agency — a buyers’ cartel of OECD members — has hastily put together a draft report entitled Saving Oil in a Hurry: Measures for Rapid Demand Restraint in Transport. The 121-page report underlines the vulnerability of the member nations to price shocks and supply disruptions, and goes on to discuss ways of reducing dependence on oil used in the transportation sector, which leads oil consumption all over the world. The measures include, apart from the usual mix of energy-saving options such as flexible work schedules, car pooling, telecommuting, speed restrictions, even tyre pressure calibration etc., steep cuts in mass transport tariffs to encourage greater use of public transport.
   What is surprising, however, are the rather drastic emergency measures contemplated by the report, such as driving bans on weekends, alternate day car-use, etc. The report goes so far as to compute the extent of policing that would be required to enforce the ban and justifies the costs involved. The upshot is that fuel importers must be ready with a plan to suddenly curtail consumption without seriously disrupting normal life.
   Not to be left behind, a motley coalition of American security experts spanning the entire political spectrum from neo-conservatives to liberals and labour unionists has put together a blueprint to liberate America from excessive reliance on imported fuel from a region it perceives to be increasingly unstable. More importantly, the Americans believe that the large sums they pay for their oil imports go to support terrorist regimes in oil producing countries — so much so that they pay for the cost of the war on terror on both sides. Titled Set America Free, the document is a strident call for an urgent transformation of the U.S. transportation sector which accounts for two-thirds of all the oil the country consumes.
   
   Alternative modes
   The blueprint envisages alternative modes and fuels for automotive propulsion to be put in place in the next four years. It recommends replacement of existing oil-guzzling vehicles with plug-in light and ultra-light hybrid vehicles that can run on both electricity and oil. Car users are urged to switch over to alternative fuels such as alcohol, ethanol, methanol and even bio-diesel — fuels whose technologies are already tried and tested and do not require large-scale investments in new R&D. The Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a Washington-based think-tank that does pioneering work on energy security issues, maintains that a complete switchover to hybrid vehicles and new fuels will reduce U.S. oil consumption by 8 million barrels a day, cutting down oil imports by nearly two-thirds. The estimated cost of this makeover is $12 billion. Supporters of the plan argue that the sum should be raised through a small levy on petroleum products. After all, at 43 cents to a gallon, the North American gasoline consumer gets away lightly on petroleum taxes, compared to his counterparts in Japan or Europe.
   
   Meeting the challenge
   Set America Free does not stop there. Acknowledging the challenge posed by excessive oil consumption — the U.S. has just 3 per cent of global oil reserves even as it consumes 25 per cent of global production — the coalition wants billions of tonnes of biomass, crop residues and agricultural waste produced in the country to be utilised to generate electricity that would fuel vehicles in future — a veritable leap back to the future! After all, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve — endorsed by President George Bush in his Energy Bill — will help the Americans cut down imports by no more than 3 per cent and that too in the next 20 years!
   Tax-shy Americans are being persuaded to fund extraction of costly shale oil and Alberta tar sands through levies on petroleum consumption. These fuels cost thrice as much to mine as conventional oil. The recent explosion at a BP refinery near Houston that claimed lives has further accentuated the American sense of paranoia over the vulnerability of global oil pipelines and infrastructure, forcing them to look inward for solutions. The U.S. Representatives are currently debating the Energy Bill, which also calls for tough fuel economy measures to be implemented by automakers.
   
   Call for a paradigm shift
   It is instructive to note that the developed countries’ call for a paradigm shift comes at a time when India and China, the two developing nations, are strenuously trying to move from non-commercial sources of energy — like biomass and crop residues — to hydrocarbons, much of which is supplied by imports. Similarly, in our eagerness to ape Western lifestyles, we have opened the floodgates to automobile manufacturers locking us firmly into a spiralling fuel consumption trajectory. Every year, we in India add around 900,000 passenger cars and about 1,50,000 sports utility vehicles and this does not even include trucks and heavy vehicles. Everyday, we are bombarded with images of the latest model sports utility vehicles and sedans, seducing us to buy bigger and better gas-guzzlers.
   Apart from the adverse environmental impact of the growth model India has chosen, opting for more and bigger passenger cars aggravates our import dependence. Transportation accounts for two-thirds of India’s oil consumption and within this category, it is the passenger car segment that is the biggest and fastest growing. Fuel import bill for the financial year that just ended is estimated to be a staggering $25 billion and it requires little imagination to guess where it might head in the next financial year if the price spiral continues, as experts believe it would. With our domestic oil production well past its peak, dependence on imports is expected to be near total in the next 20 years. Apart from Kyoto-related considerations, the sheer burden of a ballooning import bill is something that we can ignore only at our own peril.
   
   Increase in imports
   Power generation is another activity for which India is becoming increasingly import-dependent. During the last decade, most of the new thermal projects that have come up are gas-based. Domestic gas production is unable to cope with the growing demand for gas and we are increasingly turning to gas imports — currently in the form of LNG, to be supplemented by piped gas from the neighbourhood as and when the pipelines materialise. The just-commissioned Hazira LNG project pushes up India’s gas imports by 50 per cent to 7.5 tonnes a year. Further expansion of LNG capacity is also on the anvil. LNG prices being firmly locked to crude prices, the present crude spiral spells even steeper import bills for gas. While gas is surely a cleaner alternative to coal-based generation and gas turbines have shorter lead times to construct and commission, the implications for our import-dependence cannot be lost sight of.
   It is time we followed traditional wisdom by fully exploiting indigenous sources of energy — both commercial and non-commercial — to fuel the growth of our economy. The Ministry of Power has identified 50,000 megawatts of hydel capacity that it deems feasible. Many of them are run-of-the-river, mini and micro-hydel projects that can be built speedily without involving massive relocation or rehabilitation. Hydel is a clean source of energy without recurring fuel costs and it needs to be fully exploited, before we rush to add more gas-based capacity. We must also fully harness non-conventional sources of energy such as crop residues and biomass, but while doing so, we must employ technologies that will enable us to utilise these indigenous resources in a clean, efficient and sustainable manner. Simultaneously, we must beef up our public transport systems and provide a clean and affordable alternative to the present profligate and unsustainable quest for personalised transportation. Even when we implement all the measures outlined above, our dependence on fuel imports will continue but at least we can slow down the pace of growth.
   The author is with Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal. This article first appeared in The Hindu

Think of it as the Alastair Campbell rule of boredom. Repeat a political message so often that journalists are pricking their own eyes with tedium - only then can you be sure the idea is beginning to get through to the electorate. In 1997, Tony Blair had the travelling press corps sobbing as it heard the would-be PM repeat the promises on New Labour’s pledge card - but Campbell never stopped beaming. He knew the message was starting to get through.
   This year the reach-for-the-revolver phrase, repeated so often it can induce despair, is ‘hard-working families’. Open the paper, switch on the radio, watch the television; it will come along soon enough: not once, twice or three times but again and again. This time, though, it isn’t just one party that’s using it. Blair invokes hard-working families - but so does Michael Howard, doubling the strike rate.
   Who’s to blame? As so often, look to America. The granddaddy of the hard-working family, so to speak, was Bill Clinton. In his 1992 campaign he spoke of ‘the families who work hard and play by the rules’. That was a neat way of signalling his New Democrat credentials, paying due homage to family values, the work ethic and intolerance of crime in a single sentence.
   The phrase was swiftly imported, with William Hague using it often as Tory leader. But credit for the now ubiquitous truncated form probably belongs to Gordon Brown. A computer search has the first appearance of ‘the hard-working family’ coming from the then shadow chancellor in April 1996. As with ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ this signature phrase of the Blair era was Gordon’s brainchild, not Tony’s. (It didn’t take long to head back across the Atlantic: in the 2004 campaign, both George Bush and John Kerry swore to serve ‘hard-working families’.)
   It is hardly an accidental coinage. Political insiders admit the phrase has been market-tested to within an inch of its life and that it consistently ‘resonates’ with focus groups. That’s not so surprising: for a three-word phrase, it ticks a rare number of boxes.
   First, it’s almost universally inclusive. As one Conservative strategist puts it: ‘What family out there doesn’t think it’s working hard? How many people identify themselves as lazy?’ In the 1950s, politicians might have spoken of the ‘working man’. The new phrase tacitly recognises how hard women work, whether at home or outside. True, there are 3 million single people in Britain now and millions of pensioners - but the former often have parents, the latter usually have children and grandchildren. They’re still members of families. Besides, say the political pros, those who feel excluded by the phrase are heavily outnumbered by those included.
   For Labour, it strikes several useful chords. Its admiration for toil encapsulates Gordon Brown’s work ethic, a key part of the New Labour creed. It also seems to allude to the constituency of Labour’s past - the working class - without doing anything so risky as saying so out loud.
   Finding language to refer to this group has vexed social democrats for a while. The phrase ‘working class’ is deemed too retro, insufficiently aspirational and altogether laden with too much baggage. Clinton preferred ‘the forgotten middle class’, understanding that even those at the bottom end of America’s economic hierarchy wanted to feel they were just average.
   That maneouvre doesn’t quite work in Britain, prompting Brown to sit with several of his closest aides - including US political consultant Bob Shrum - during Labour’s first term to find an acceptable alternative. Adapting Clinton’s formula, and entrenching the phrase ‘hard-working families’ was partly the result of those deliberations.
   For the Conservatives, the term has a different value. Thatcherism often sounded like a selfish pursuit, every individual out to make his own fortune. This phrase says something else, according to Conservative insiders: ‘You’re not just doing this for yourself; you’re doing it for your family.’ Even the most cash-crazed workaholic can feel like a good person.
   What both parties like is the phrase’s nod to an increasingly important agenda, one cherished by 2005’s favourite demographic, the ‘school-gate mums’ (soccer moms, in US parlance). Work-life balance, childcare provision, the sharing of domestic chores - somehow it all seems to be there in that single phrase. ‘It’s rather like that Abbey National slogan, ‘Because life’s complicated enough,’ ‘ says my friendly strategist. ‘It says, ‘I know how difficult things are out there. I understand.’ ‘
   ‘I understand’ are two words every politician wants to convey. And if those other three magic words can do the job then it’s no wonder they’re having to work so hard this election season. After May 5, perhaps we can give them a little rest?
   — The Guardian