Premier Mike Harris has just led the Progressive Conservatives to a spectacular victory in the Ontario Legislature, leaving the Liberals fuming -- notwithstanding the fact that the Liberals have increased their vote by nine per cent, they have little to show for it. Canada, like India, follows the first-past-the-post system and a party's share of the total vote is not necessarily reflected in the number of seats won by it. But while the Liberals, along with flag-waving supporters who are in the forefront of championing gay rights, demanding higher public spending and protecting the Amazon rain forest, grieve over their defeat, Harris has more than one reason to celebrate. This is the second successive victory wrenched by the Progressive Conservatives in the face of bitter opposition. This victory is made sweeter by the fact that he has survived what most politicians in power dread: harsh cutbacks in public spending, sweeping reforms in electoral laws and the all-too-familiar anti-incumbency factor. But his efforts have paid dividends -- Ontario has low taxes, more jobs and a booming economy. Harris had the courage to take the jump and he has reaped a windfall. What is of particular interest to a casual observer from India is the sweeping electoral reforms ushered in by Harris during his previous term. Disregarding criticism (of the sort we hear from our politicians and read on the editorial pages of our newspapers), he reduced the campaigning period from five to three weeks; raised spending limits; and, removed the existing ceilings on contributions by individuals and corporations. Most importantly, in an effort to cut spending on the upkeep of legislators both serving and retired, his government reduced the number of seats from 130 to 103. In India, all this would send shivers down the collective spines of our politicians and send a rocket up the collective derrieres of our editorial commentators. "Indoo" hypocrisy demands that our politicians wear the badge of poverty while living off the taxpayers' money; that they mouth pious inanities about the need to curb campaign spending while accepting tainted money from businessmen who in any other country would be behind bars for multiple violation of laws; and, that they fudge their election accounts to demonstrate compliance with laughable ceilings imposed by the Election Commission whose members have absolutely no idea how much it costs to contest a municipal election, leave alone a general election. The armed conflict in the icy, barren wilderness of Kargil is of no interest in this part of the world. Surprising, though, since Canada had struck a sanctimonious posture on our nuclear tests and imposed sanctions against us. While other sanction-imposing capitals were quick to realise that India was not dependent on Western patronage and engaged New Delhi in dialogue, Ottawa continues to ride the high horse of moral principles and pretended concern about the nuclear tests leading to a nuclear holocaust in the sub-continent. Yet, it is amazing how little informed officials are about the latest from the Kargil front. If their concern had been genuine, as also the concern of the Canadian newspapers which had virtually reproduced the editorial line of The New York Times and The Washington Post in their reaction to the nuclear tests, then the ongoing Kargil conflict would have been reflected in some form or the other in local media. Yes, there was Salman Rushdie on the editorial page making an idiot of himself by trying to write on sub-continental politics of which he so obviously knows so little and predicting that Kashmir would soon be reduced to nuclear debris. And there was Sunanda K Datta-Ray writing from his perch in Singapore about events in distant Kargil. Little wonder that Canadian foreign policy defies reason and logic. It is reflected in Canada's current predicament. Having dutifully followed the Americans into the Kosovo muddle, the Canadians suddenly find themselves left out of crucial discussions and deliberations. On the other hand, column after column is dedicated to stuff that we in India would tend to consider inconsequential but seems to be of great popular interest in Canada. For instance, with Sex and the City making its debut on Canadian national TV, newspapers carried not merely the news on the front page but also lengthy features on the inside pages. John Allemang, celebrated television critic whose articles are read with deadpan seriousness in Canada, introduced the new show (of which we in India who follow TV trends in foreign shores have known for quite some time) in remarkably telling prose for whose clarity I envy him. "There's precious little innocence left in the Manhattan lived in by the four -- there's no other word for it -- horny women in Sex and the City," he writes on the morning the show is slated to make a splash, "This is a place where primness is defined as a reluctance to have anal sex too early in a relationship -- upsets the power balance -- and friends boast to friends 'There was so much skin, it was like a Shar-Pei'." Sex and the City is a late night television serial that has been making waves for more than a year now, thanks to, if I am not wrong, Fox TV. It is about four (single) thirtysomething women, each an achiever and go-getter, who decide to have, to quote my friend John Allemang, "sex like a guy". It is all about the "age of un-innocence." If you want to know what it means, see an episode on pirated video. The Government of India would be shocked to know that women could harbour such wicked thoughts and be interested in anything but blouses whose sleeves touch the wrist. So we can't look forward to Sex and the City on either Doordarshan or Star TV. I have two choices for a tailpiece. But since I am not able to make up my mind, I will let you have both of them. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled that people in same-sex relationships are spouses for the purposes of the Family Law Act of Ontario. What this means is that insurance companies will have to shell out monies to gay partners which would have, till now, gone to properly married spouses in heterosexual marriages in the event of a partner's death. There is also state liability in terms of benefits. This has prompted the moral crusaders here to launch a vitriolic attack. But they are fighting a losing battle, and they know it. And now there is Leah McLaren, whose 'Fifth Column' is read avidly by all liberals and crusaders. In her latest column, she has argued in favour of granting women the right to sell their ova. If men can sell their sperm, why can't women, she asks. The answer, according to her, lies in the fact that men "don't want eggs to leave the ovary, go out to work, have a career and stake out a market value alongside their sperm counterparts." If you think that is absurd, then you would toast Mike Harris's victory and hope that progressive conservatives in India retain control over the affairs of state. Columnist Kanchan Gupta is currently away from it all
HOME | NEWS | BUSINESS | SPORTS | MOVIES | CHAT | INFOTECH | TRAVEL | SINGLES BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | GIFT SHOP | HOTEL RESERVATIONS | WORLD CUP 99 EDUCATION | PERSONAL HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | FEEDBACK