New Page 2

The English Language news paper The Hindu published from Chennai does not undertake any simple investigation or enquiry.
It just becomes mouth piece of left leaning intellectuals.
In a overtly " devoted" article its correspondent lavishes all possible praise to Dr. Sen including his claim of being a proud Indian. It was suggested earlier by many news reports that Dr. Sen is a citizen of United Kingdom and this imply he travels to India as a " tourists" or for specific" conferences".
How come a foreigner asks for a debate with Deputy Prime Minister of India is a mystery which the English Language news paper Published from Chennai and its special correspondent alone can solve for ordinary readers. The paper should have looked into this important issue before publishing such challenges.

Ready for debate on secularism: Amartya Sen
By Our Special Correspondent
Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen in conversation with actress and MP, Shabana Azmi, at a symposium on ``The Future of Mid-day Meals'' in New Delhi on Friday. Photo: Rajeev Bhatt.
NEW DELHI Aug. 1. Reiterating that a "sense of disquiet" prevailed among the minorities in this country, the Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen, today welcomed the Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani's suggestion for an open debate on secularism.
Responding to questions on the latter's comments at a seminar on Thursday, Prof. Sen conceded that they did disagree on the issue of secularism. "I think secularism in India has taken a reasonably big hit lately. The DPM does not agree and some day we will debate."
At a press conference, he welcomed Mr. Advani's suggestion for a debate on the issue as it strengthened the country's open society of which he was proud. "I am proud of being an Indian. We are a great country but we should live like a great country," he said refusing to accept suggestions that the situation for minorities was worse in neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh. While pointing out that Bangladesh had no record recently of communal riots, he said "I will not take consolation from the fact that the situation is worse elsewhere."
Prof. Sen pointed out that the minorities in India were experiencing "a sense of disquiet and uncertainty". As a result of the polarisation of religion, people were being identified on the basis of their faith to which he was opposed. In this context, he referred to the U.K. where religious schools of all faiths were proliferating and children did not have the opportunity to compare religions and take decisions on their own.

He felt India showed its democratic muscle when the poorest electorate in the world rejected the suspension of human rights after the emergency. But the country needed to stretch democratic practice and freedom much further. While proud of the country's secular traditions, he said "stretching" was needed to make it even better.
On India's defence expenditure, he said on a per capita basis it might be higher than in Pakistan but the total amount was much larger than in that country. Thus, it was not correct to compare the two countries' military expenditure on a per capita basis. Since Pakistan was overwhelmed by India's conventional weapons superiority, it was retaining its nuclear strike option and therefore did not agree to India's proposal for a no-first strike pact.
On the other hand, he felt the issue of per capita military expenditure could be used to compare the relative levels of spending on education and health. The relative ranking there should that India had little to be proud of, as these two social sectors were way down compared to military expenditure, he said.
Lavishing praise on the Indian media, he said, "India is lucky to have a vigorous press". Asked whether private ownership of media would not lead to bias in the press, he said the danger of being critical of private press ownership was that it could lead to arguments to support government control on the press. "All suppression in the Soviet Union and China was on the grounds that the private sector produces a biased press," he said.
In this regard, he said, the critical issue was competition. There could be different business groups presenting different points of view as in the British press but that did not make the press useless. In fact, expansion of media had a major role in informing the public.