The Hindu Business Line : `State' of the Union

I was watching the TV with rapt attention. It was a live telecast of the US President, Mr George Bush, delivering his State of the Union Address on the night of January 23.

The first part of his speech was about economic and social development. He was happy to report job growth and booming economy. He promised to keep budgets under check, improve social security provisions, help children in search of good schools, bring about immigration reforms, introduce measures to cut oil consumption and augment the petroleum stockpile.

The last segment of his speech was exhilarating. He pointed to four special people among the invitees, including a person who grew up in Africa, became a citizen of the US, and built a hospital in Congo and another who saw a man fall into the path of a train, jumped onto the tracks, pulled the man into the space between the rails, and held him as the train passed right above their heads. Undoubtedly these men and women of America make the nation proud.

A large part of the middle of Mr Bush's speech was reserved for the war on terror, promoting democracy in the rest of the world and, of course, Iraq and the new strategy — "a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission."

By any standards, which include the great educational system, infrastructure and technology, the US is a great country. My only wish is that it would set an example of non-interference in others' affairs and repose complete faith in a UN with a broadly represented Security Council.

`Independent' issue

In the recently concluded municipal elections in Andhra Pradesh, several mainstream party candidates, when denied ticket, decided to contest as independents. Newspapers openly remarked about the price the independents demand for supporting one mayoral candidate or the other. I can't believe, but the numbers making the rounds are never less than a crore (rupees only).

The mother of all reforms should be electoral reform. It will serve the interest of all recognised political parties. Should we allow independents to contest any election? If a person can neither be a part of a political party nor organise one, he or she loses credibility and perhaps does not deserve to contest in elections. Is it too much to ask the reformers?

(The author, formerly with the National University of Singapore and the World Bank, is Professor Emeritus, GITAM Institute of Foreign Trade, Visakhapatnam, and Visiting Faculty, Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, Prashanti Nilayam. He can be reached at bhanoji@gmail.com.)