| |
EDITORIAL
Strike
at Vandals
Set
up a special force to tackle in-house sabotage during protests
 There
is little ethical distinction to be drawn between Veerappan, the brigand
holding two states to ransom by keeping a popular filmstar hostage, and
the 18,567 junior telecom officers (JTO) of the Department of Telecom
Operations (DTO), who brought long-distance lines to a grinding halt for
three days last week. In the latter case, the hostages are numerous, being
users of the country's 28 million fixed and mobile telephones. The JTOs'
action was termed work-to-rule, but the definition of the term surely
cannot be stretched to include sabotage, often by tampering with the printed
circuit boards kept at exchanges for operating long-distance calls.
Unlike in the past, when striking telecom workers disrupted lines by cutting
off cables and knocking down telephone poles, today's computerised networks
can be immobilised with much less effort by a handful of people. The JTOs,
of course, have a genuine demand for a sovereign guarantee of their pension
liabilities after the DTO gets corporatised on October 1. However, the
matter is under negotiation and the remaining 3.7 lakh employees are awaiting
its outcome. As it appears, the telecom officers, most of whom are affiliated
to the leftist trade unions, struck more out of political considerations
than economic. That saddles the Government with the problem of saving
communication lines from in-house sabotage until state monopoly ends,
with private parties starting basic and long-distance operations. That
may not be any sooner than the middle of next year. Till then, the Government
must raise a special force to prevent misuse of equipment at MTNL and
the proposed Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. Nobody can call such a move
anti-labour. Every job carries the obligation of not vandalising office
property. If telecom officers have other ideas, catch them before they
go on the rampage.
Necropolis
Delhi
Why do
private mourners hunger for public memorials?
 In
announcing an outright ban on The creation of political memorials on public
property, Urban Development Minister Jagmohan has done the country a signal
service. The proliferation of samadhis along the Yamuna in Delhi is an
ostentation more suited to the era of kings and potentates than a democracy.
Even more criminal is the usurping of official bungalows as museums commemorating
dead politicians. What this amounts to is plain land grabbing, allowing
the family of the departed "leader" to permanently acquire a
part of India's most prized real estate. Jagmohan has made it clear that
of the existing memorials the government will fund the upkeep of just
one: that of Mahatma Gandhi. The rest will have to fend for themselves.
This is only fair. The Mahatma, as the Father of the Nation, is the first
citizen of the Indian republic. India owes him a memorial not for the
individual he was but for the embodiment of nationhood he has become.
To equate him with every politician who wins an election or two is ridiculous.
To be honest,
not every political family has this atavistic thirst for property. When
Rajesh Pilot died in a car accident early this year, his wife was steadfast
in refusing to back sycophantic calls for a memorial near Raj Ghat. The
dignity of Rama Pilot, however, is something of a singularity in Indian
public life. Lesser mortals-the parasitic classes which believe the exchequer
owes them a lifelong pension solely on the strength of a famous surname-need
to be checked by the law. This is why the key to Jagmohan's decision will
lie in implementation that is strict and brooks no exception. The Indian
politician may have his sense of self-importance-but he has no business
presuming common Indians will mourn him the way Shahjahan grieved for
Mumtaz Mahal.
Top
|
|
If
there was one word to summarise Putin+s style, it is Realnosti---Russian
for get real---says INDIA TODAY Deputy Editor Chengappa in
