The increase in the price of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) by over 62 per cent in the last nine months is cause for concern. LPG is used as fuel in public transport, including rickshaws, as well as in households where piped gas is unavailable.
Over 500,000 households depend on LPG for their heating and cooking needs and the use of this gas is encouraged under a policy of forest preservation. Both natural gas and LPG account for 39 per cent of the country's energy needs and a rise in LPG prices has an adverse effect on a substantial part of the population.
Owing to erratic supply and rising international oil prices, LPG prices rose from Rs 29 per kilogram in July to over Rs 44 per kilogram in September. This unprecedented rise forced distributors to go on strike.
On the intervention of the prime minister, it was decided that LPG prices would be reduced at the production stage and this benefit would be passed on to the customer from this week.
However, the prices have not come down as expected. While some shops in major cities are selling LPG at Rs 39 per kilogram, prices are unchanged in rural areas where consumption is greater.
Notice of this discrepancy must be taken and those producers who are not reducing their rates as agreed should be taken to task. Ideally, LPG should be priced at Rs 30 per kilogram, as was the case a few months back so that LPG rates are once again competitive with those of other fuels.
At the same time, more attention should be paid to increasing domestic production of LPG, which currently stands at 1,000 tons per day. Clearly this is inadequate in the face of the rising demand.
Keeping in mind the record rise in international fuel prices (it crossed $50 per barrel last Monday), indigenous fuel has to be tapped on a priority basis. The government may consider deregulating LPG prices as has been done for petroleum products. That will give an incentive to local producers to invest in LPG production on a priority basis, assuring greater supplies in the years to come.
Forgotten POWs
In a letter in this newspaper, the daughter of an Indian army officer says that she has been trying to trace her father's whereabouts ever since he went missing during the 1971 war between Pakistan and India.
This comes after the surprise release by Pakistan in early August of two Indian soldiers taken as POWs during the Kargil conflict and of a Pakistani soldier by the Indian side. What is interesting to note is that until then both governments had strongly denied holding any POWs.
Mohammad Arif, one of the two Indian soldiers repatriated, returned home to find that his wife, thinking him to be dead (the Indian army had declared both men deserters), had married again. The father of the other POW died in his son's absence while his wife, also believing him to be dead, went away to her parents' place.
The letter in question claims that at least 54 Indian POWs are still languishing in jails in Pakistan since 1971, and there might be a possibility that some could be in prison on the Indian side too.
Islamabad's official position is that it holds no Indian POWs, a refrain echoed by New Delhi. However, the recent swap in August indicates that such official positions do not tell the whole story.
It could be that in the case of a conflict as old as 1971, and with a new atmosphere of cordiality and reconciliation prevailing between the two countries, both may not want to touch a sensitive issue by publicly admitting the presence of POWs.
But it is precisely for that reason that they should be willing to broach the subject without the risk of any misunderstanding. The case is indeed strong for the release of any POW who may still be in captivity on either side. Doing so will help provide some kind of closure and solace for their families, as in the case of the daughter who wrote the letter.