A poor law?

So does India’s law pass the test? In Maharashtra, said the Economist, the EGS has fared better than other welfare schemes. This is in spite of the corruption and leakages and despite the carping by critics that not enough enduring public assets may have been built as a consequence. For the Economist, in any case ‘‘… the real value of the public works lie not in the orchards they plant, but in the safety net they provide…’’ Maharashtra’s EGS fared well, the magazine argued, at least till 1988, when the minimum wage was doubled overnight, leading to the tacit rationing of jobs.

But what about the new law framed by the Centre? The Economist saw the UPA government’s two-fold dilution at the very outset as a bad augury. The government has backed away from the commitment to a minimum wage set by each state, it has restricted the guarantee to 100 days of work to households officially classified as poor. The government’s ‘‘poverty fighting ambitions’’ may be caving in to its ‘‘fiscal apprehensions’’, feared the magazine.

Himalayan mess

Nepal’s turbulence rippled weakly in the western media all week. Why, indeed, must the world take serious notice of a remote Himalayan kingdom, where the king just sacked a multi party government, put ministers under house arrest, the country in a state of emergency, shut down telephone and internet links, all in the ‘‘larger interests of the people’’, all the while professing himself a champion of multiparty democracy?

The Wall Street Journal Asia spelt out at least one reason why people other than mountain climbers must be concerned that options in Nepal are narrowed down to the King or the Maoists — the latter have expressed confidence that one day they will hoist the red flag on Mount Everest. Nepal’s location on the map between India and China worries the Journal: ‘‘Never close friends at the best of times, Asia’s two giants don’t need to have this spot of trouble at a time when both are trying to focus on economic growth. Should the king’s actions lead to a victory by Maoist rebels already besieging Kathmandu, we could then have a chaotic state exporting terrorism next door’’.

In the Guardian, columnist and writer Isabel Hilton warned the west against going along with the King’s description of the Maoists as ‘‘terrorists’’ and the parallels he attempts to draw between Nepal’s situation and the al Qaeda-style ‘‘terrorist challenge’’. The military solution had already been tried in Nepal, she wrote. And ‘‘Now it is time to talk — if the Maoists are still picking up the phone.’’

Jolie’s way

Can Angelina Jolie really change the world? That’s the question the New York Times asked last week. But the question isn’t entirely in jest, nor is the NYT asking it alone. Many in the American and British media have come back from Davos with the sneaky suspicion that the power of celebrity might yet do for humanity what politicians, economists and activists can’t.

Time magazine recalled Sharon Stone’s sterling performance at a plenary session on fighting poverty at the World Economic Forum. The star of Basic Instinct stood up to coax instant donations from the distinguished audience amounting to $ 1 million for the fight against malaria in Tanzania. Jolie made people listen as she spoke of her experiences in Cambodia.

More and more celebrities appear to be staying with the cause and that’s good — for the cause. It was in some measure due to some engaged star power, Time appeared convinced, that this year at the World Economic Forum, perhaps the only meet that describes itself as ‘‘Committed to Improving the State of the World’’, Poverty in the Developing World trumped Internet, Terrorism, Iraq.