The political drama, which unfolded on the night of May 6, was that of agony and ecstasy. Agony in Senator Hillary Clinton’s camp and ecstasy in that of Senator Barack Obama. Agony for Hillary because her victory in the Indiana primary was slender, a mere two per cent; and ecstasy for Obama because in his North Carolina victory he had a lead of 14 per cent over his rival.

Obama’s victory has broken a series of setbacks which he had suffered for more than a month. Moreover, the incendiary speeches of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright had created a shadow of suspicion. He had also not won a primary in large states like California or Texas. Obama has now crossed all these obstacles.

Obama’s success in North Carolina was never in doubt as 30 per cent of the voters there are blacks. In Indiana blacks account for 15 per cent. Almost 92 per cent of them solidly backed Obama. The demographic divide is also significant. Hillary Clinton has the support of the working-class white women and white low to moderate wage-earners, mid-level farmers, Catholics and the Latinos. Her supporters, however, are not well educated.

At the same time, Obama voters are the upscale whites, college graduates, well-to-do farmers, self-employed individuals, liberals and those in the age group of 18 to 30 years. In fact, Obama has inspired the young generation to participate in the voting process. The turnout in the Democratic primaries were phenomenal; and though Hillary could draw large crowds, Obama surpassed her.

It is also true that wherever African-Americans have a sizeable presence, Obama has easily won the primaries. This was the case in eight primaries. The percentage of the black supporters for Obama went on increasing as the race progressed. Thus, while in South Carolina Hillary won 12 per cent black votes in February, this figure came down to six per cent in North Carolina in May. It is, of course, understandable, as for the first time African-Americans have a credible candidate, a probable winner in the Democratic race who has some chance of getting to the White House. Moreover, the black voters might have been roused, when they saw Obama come under fire for his association with Rev. Wright, and they decided to rally behind him.

The racial divide cannot be ignored. We, therefore, find that in Indiana, eight out of 10 white voters supported Hillary and in North Carolina this equation was six out of 10. In Indiana 65 per cent and in North Carolina 60 per cent of the whites voted for Clinton. Among the blacks it was the other way round and hence nine out of 10 blacks chose Obama.

Obama was flush with money and spent three times more than Hillary on advertisements in Pennsylvania. This ratio was four to one in North Carolina and Indiana. Hillary now is short of funds and it is reported that to carry on the campaign for the remaining six primaries it would be difficult for her to have enough resources. At the same time, the poor showing in Indiana has come as a shock to her supporters.

This is a heaven-sent opportunity for her detractors in the media. For a long time they have been pressuring her to withdraw. Even before the Pennsylvania primary this pressure started mounting. Though she won that primary by almost 10 per cent, the clamour did not stop. Several reporters have now become Obama supporters and the television anchors act like his drumbeaters.

This one-sided propaganda has crossed all limits. One blogger wrote about what to wear and which flowers to take to Hillary’s funeral. While MSNBC acts like Obama’s headquarters, CNN too does not lag behind. One MSNBC talk show host suggested that someone should take Hillary into a room and come out alone. Another declared that after the Indiana result, Hillary was standing before the rope. This is the kind of political reporting and commentary.

But Hillary does not seem to oblige these opponents or buckle under pressure. She has announced that the race would continue up to the last primary. Of course, the mathematics do not favour her. The ultimate number of Democratic delegates required is 2,025. Both Obama and Hillary are not expected to achieve this target without the support of the super delegates. However, compared to Hillary, Obama is close. To catch up, Hillary would have to win 70 per cent of votes in the remaining six primaries, which is improbable.

Hillary depends upon the Florida and Michigan primaries. Both the states held their primaries before the prescribed dates laid down by the Democratic National Committee. So their results were discarded. Because of the DNC order, Hillary and Obama did not canvas in these states. But both their names were on the ballot paper in Florida. In Michigan Hillary’s name was on the ballot but Obama took his name off. The DNC is, therefore, in trouble. A committee is meeting at the end of this month to find out a solution.

Hillary’s other argument is that Obama might have got more popular votes and more delegates but he is not electable, as he does not have the support of the core Democratic voters: the working-class white men and women, Catholics, Latinos and those who are not collage graduates. In the general election it could prove to be a handicap, as without this section, no Democratic candidate can win.

One wonders whether the special delegates, who are to arbitrate, would buy this argument and discard Obama’s claim. In view of the points raised by Hillary, there might be a risk in Obama’ selection; but the delegates would then have to face a greater risk and that is of the complete alienation of African-Americans from the Democratic Party.

The oil bubble: Set to burst?" That was the headline of an October 2004 article in National Review, which argued that oil prices, then $50 a barrel, would soon collapse.

Ten months later, oil was selling for $70 a barrel. "It’s a huge bubble," declared Steve Forbes, the publisher, who warned that the coming crash in oil prices would make the popping of the technology bubble "look like a picnic."

All through oil’s five-year price surge, which has taken it from $25 a barrel to last week’s close above $125, there have been many voices declaring that it’s all a bubble, unsupported by the fundamentals of supply and demand.

So here are two questions: Are speculators mainly, or even largely, responsible for high oil prices? And if they aren’t, why have so many commentators insisted, year after year, that there’s an oil bubble?

Now, speculators do sometimes push commodity prices far above the level justified by fundamentals. But when that happens, there are telltale signs that just aren’t there in today’s oil market.

Imagine what would happen if the oil market were humming along, with supply and demand balanced at a price of $25 a barrel, and a bunch of speculators came in and drove the price up to $100.

Even if this were purely a financial play on the part of the speculators, it would have major consequences in the material world.

Faced with higher prices, drivers would cut back on their driving; homeowners would turn down their thermostats; owners of marginal oil wells would put them back into production.

As a result, the initial balance between supply and demand would be broken, replaced with a situation in which supply exceeded demand. This excess supply would, in turn, drive prices back down again — unless someone were willing to buy up the excess and take it off the market.

The only way speculation can have a persistent effect on oil prices, then, is if it leads to physical hoarding — an increase in private inventories of black gunk. This actually happened in the late 1970s, when the effects of disrupted Iranian supply were amplified by widespread panic stockpiling.

But it hasn’t happened this time: all through the period of the alleged bubble, inventories have remained at more or less normal levels. This tells us that the rise in oil prices isn’t the result of runaway speculation; it’s the result of fundamental factors, mainly the growing difficulty of finding oil and the rapid growth of emerging economies like China. The rise in oil prices these past few years had to happen to keep demand growth from exceeding supply growth.

Saying that high-priced oil isn’t a bubble doesn’t mean that oil prices will never decline.

I would not be shocked if a pullback in oil demand, driven by delayed effects of high prices, sends the price of crude back below $100 for sometime. But it does mean that speculators aren’t at the heart of the story.

Why, then, do we keep hearing assertions that they are?

Part of the answer may be the undoubted fact that many people are now investing in oil futures — which feeds suspicion that speculators are running the show, even though there’s no good evidence that prices have gotten out of line.

But there’s also a political component.

Traditionally, denunciations of speculators come from the Left of the political spectrum. In the case of oil prices, however, the most vociferous proponents of the view that it’s all the speculators’ fault have been conservatives — people whom you wouldn’t normally expect to see warning about the nefarious activities of investment banks and hedge funds.

The explanation of this seeming paradox is that wishful thinking has trumped pro-market ideology.

After all, a realistic view of what’s happened over the past few years suggests that we’re heading into an era of increasingly scarce, costly oil.

The consequences of that scarcity probably won’t be apocalyptic: France consumes only half as much oil per capita as America, yet the last time I looked, Paris wasn’t a howling wasteland. But the odds are that we’re looking at a future in which energy conservation becomes increasingly important, in which many people may even — gasp — take public transit to work.

I don’t find that vision particularly abhorrent, but a lot of people, especially on the Right, do.

And so they want to believe that if only Goldman Sachs would stop having such a negative attitude, we’d quickly return to the good old days of abundant oil.

Again, I wouldn’t be shocked if oil prices dip in the near future — although I also take seriously Goldman’s recent warning that the price could go to $200. But let’s drop all the talk about an oil bubble.

With the ongoing panchayat elections in West Bengal, this is a good time to examine what such elections reflect. It is now taken for granted in different parts of India that locally elected panchayats can be important instruments for ensuring more effective delivery of different public services and government programmes, as well as means of social and political mobilisation for more democratic outcomes. But even when the panchayati raj institutions were given prominence two decades ago through the passing of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments, this was not so obvious.

In fact, West Bengal was a pioneering state in this regard, which set the agenda for the rest of the country. The positive experience of West Bengal’s own panchayat legislation and subsequent measures at decentralisation of different powers was what set the tone for the attempts elsewhere in the country.

However, there was one significant feature of West Bengal’s experience that made the decentralisation process much more democratic — the fact that it was preceded and accompanied by significant land reforms. These increased the power and status of previously marginalised and oppressed groups, encouraged them to participate more actively in gram sabhas and panchayats and increased their proportion in the elected representation.

It is this feature of decentralisation being associated with progressive land reforms that has made West Bengal’s positive experience much harder to replicate in other states, with a few exceptions such as Kerala and Tripura, since there have hardly been significant land reforms in the rest of the country. But it is particularly important because it prevents or reduces the possibility that the panchayats get dominated by village elites, especially large landlords, moneylenders and traders, and thereby reinforce power equations that are already skewed against the poor and socially marginalised groups.

Data on the current composition of panchayats indicate that less well-off categories are more numerous in the panchayat membership and traditional elite groups are hardly represented. Agriculturalists and household workers dominate in terms of the major occupations, but agricultural labour is also reasonably well represented even at the panchayat samiti level. Teachers do have disproportionate representation. However, landlords and those involved in business, who tend to dominate in the panchayats of most other states, are insignificant in number and as a proportion of total panchayat members.

Related to this has been the different social composition of panchayats in terms of caste categories, which is also different in West Bengal compared to other states. While data on occupational background of panchayat members are not easily available for other states, we do have some information on social background and gender for other states, based on a study commissioned by the ministry of rural development. The table presents the results, which refer to five states, in comparison to data from West Bengal, all relating to the period 2003-04.

The most striking feature to emerge from the table is the much greater representation of scheduled castes at all levels of panchayats in West Bengal, compared to all the other five states. This cannot only be explained by the greater presence of SCs in the population of West Bengal (which is high at 23 per cent). The share of SCs in total population is just as high in Maharashtra yet SCs are significantly less in proportion to total elected representatives. Indeed, the representation of SCs in the panchayats is well above their share of population in West Bengal.

The same is true of scheduled tribes. The proportion of STs in total elected panchayat membership in West Bengal may appear to be small at 7.2 per cent, especially in relation to the higher figures evident for tribal-dominated states such as Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. But it is higher than the share of STs in the total population of West Bengal (5.5 per cent). It is also worth noting that both SCs and STs have been relatively well represented not only at the gram panchayat level, but even at the higher tiers of district government such as the zilla parishads.

Another significant aspect relates to the empowerment of women through participation in panchayats. West Bengal has had a history of substantial representation of women in panchayats well before the 73rd and 74th Amendments were passed by Parliament. In fact, more than one-third of panchayat members have been women throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The table shows that this continues and that the proportion of women panchayat members at different levels is somewhat higher in West Bengal than in four of the other states. Only Uttar Pradesh has a slightly higher representation, but in that state the evidence on actual empowerment of women as a result of this is more mixed.

The participation of women, SCs and STs in panchayats tends to have dynamic effects on the social and political empowerment of these groups in general. It also has been seen to have positive effects on the general functioning and responsiveness of panchayats to people’s needs. There is, therefore, enormous potential for progressive social change in such a process. Indeed, there is also need to ensure adequate representation from minority communities such as Muslims, for which we do not have the data at present to analyse the actual extent of participation.

Panchayats in West Bengal are charged with a very wide range of powers and responsibilities, and these duties have been increasing over time. It is therefore very important to ensure that panchayat members are provided with the requisite facilities and enabled with administrative and technical resources to carry out their many functions.

It is encouraging to note that the state government has recently announced that for the newly elected panchayats as of June 26, 2008, pradhans of the gram panchayats will be declared as whole-time functionaries and their remuneration and honorarium will be revised accordingly. This was a much-needed measure to enable proper functioning, and along these lines other measures need to be taken to provide sufficient administrative support to all panchayat members. This is especially important for elected representatives who come from weaker sections and have less in the way of their own financial and other resources.

Which man possessing a sane and trained mind could have one iota of an objection to his country having an independent judiciary? Which man wishing to abide by the law as laid down by the lawmakers of his land would oppose an independent judiciary?

President General Pervez Musharraf has done some good for Pakistan. For the first seven years of his eight years in power he was considered to be the best of the worst lot. He then made the fatal mistake of believing that he was beloved by all except a few of his countrymen. And now, history will be loathe to forgive him for his attacks on the judiciary of his country in 2007.

Concentrating on the jugular, we must ask what exactly are the "deals," the dishonourable agreements made by dishonourable men and agreed to with and among the four camps, either written or verbally delivered?

We must ask the old question : Qui bono? Who wishes to restore which judges and for what selfish or expedient reason under what circumstances? Who apprehends what, and what is the nature of the trust between compatriots?

By the grace of providence, all is not lost, there are those who sit on the benches in our superior courts who dispense justice in terms of the mangled Constitution as it now stands. That they choose to do so must go to their credit, the state of the judiciary in this country being what it has been and now is. One case in point. On April 28, Constitutional Petition D-757/08 was heard by a division bench of the Sindh high court comprising Justice Qaiser Iqbal and Justice Syed Mehmood Alam Rizvi. Five citizens of Karachi filed a petition against eight respondents, including the environmental protection council, the defence housing authority and the Clifton cantonment board, seeking relief. Their problem is the flyover now being constructed along the main Gizri Road by the DHA and the CCB.

It is a mandatory requirement pursuant to the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, that no construction may commence without initial environment assessments. Furthermore, Sub-section 3 of Section 12 of the Act requires that "Every review of an environment impact assessment shall be carried out with public participation." No public notice was published by any of the respondents concerned, nor was there any environmental impact assessment conducted nor was there any environment assessment as mandated by law. Also absent from the project was the mandatory public notice inviting objections from those affected by the project — and the objections would have been myriad. The purpose of the hearing is clear — to allow the public to suggest ways to adjust the project so as to achieve a broad consensus on the project and to give alternatives, in this case an underpass which would seem to be much more prudent for all sections of society.

The commercialised section of the main Gizri Road, up to the Total petrol station, has been dug down to a depth of 20 feet. With no EIA. It is not known how adversely the digging will affect the foundations and the safety of the houses of the petitioners.

The construction of the flyover mandated by the DHA and CCB to serve the traffic load expected from all their fancy anti-environment so-called "development" schemes will also adversely affect the value of the properties of the petitioners.

All in all, it is an unhappy scheme, and if the flyover can be terminated at the Total petrol pump the affected citizens will at least be spared some of the inconvenience.

The petition was taken up, the people were heard and heeded, and the good judges handed down the following order: "...Granted subject to all just exceptions. It is inter alia contended that the respondent No 8 (Nespak Private Limited) was awarded the task of construction of an overhead bridge from the Submarine Chowrangi to Khayaban-e-Tanzeem, over the main Gizri Road, DHA Phase V, Karachi. It is urged that the petitioners have been deprived of their legitimate right of being protected from nuisance, pollution and other natural corollaries of commercialisation by the respondent No 5 (defence housing authority) in utter violation of the Pakistan Environment Protection Act 1997, that construction of a flyover bridge would hamper the rights of the petitioners, more particularly right to life has been put into jeopardy on account of the violation of Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations 2002. The contentions raised require consideration. Issue pre-admission notice to the respondents for 9.5.2008.

"Notice as above. Till then respondents are restrained from carrying on further construction of the overhead bridge on main Gizri Road beyond the Total petrol pump on Khayaban-i-Hafiz, Gizri, till the next date of hearing." The lawyer representing the citizens is Omar Soomro. We must wish him success.

During the Musharraf years, the DHA and the cantonment boards have by and large got away with murder when it comes to the environment and its destruction. Currently, there are five projects being undertaken by the DHA and the Clifton cantonment board which are prima facie illegal.

A couple of these projects are needed, the others are a disastrous waste of taxpayers’ money. All should involve the public that is directly affected by these decisions. All require an EIA and a hearing. It seems that with the DHA and the CCB, old habits die hard.

I am informed that in Balochistan, Justice Kholi sitting as chairman of the Balochistan Environmental Tribunal, is taking up the EIA issue for that province. We need to find someone appropriate in Sindh to emulate him.

Exactly four years ago this month, a cyclone, the strongest in 30 years, hit Myanmar. A journalist, writing one month later in The Irrawaddy (a news magazine published by Burmese exiles), wondered how the country’s state-controlled news media could fail to make any mention of a typhoon that the United Nations said killed at least 140 people, sunk vessels and made an estimated 18,000 people homeless.

The journalist, Dominic Faulder, wrote that "a town of 100,000 could burn to the ground here and nobody would ever know about it." Here, he concluded, is a country "where disasters don’t happen, officially." For the people of Myanmar, this truth is more devastating — and its tragedy more lingering — than anything that nature may bring.

If information can flow as freely as nature’s elements, the consequences of many calamities — be they earthquakes, floods, droughts, hurricanes or storms — are manageable and even preventable. Absent such freedom in news and information, all "natural" disasters are ultimately man-made.

When the military junta in Myanmar refused on Friday to accept relief workers into the country, its actions underscored a terrible reality: the ruling generals view independent information as more dangerous to them than Cyclone Nargis, which may have killed 20,000 to 100,000 people and left up to a million people homeless.

And for the Burmese people, a drought in information can be deadlier than the forces that despots seek to deny. Catastrophes of this scale are inconvenient to governments of this peculiar character because they give aid agencies compelling arguments to be allowed to operate in even the most notoriously secretive of states. Once inside, relief workers can afford the world a glimpse of the poverty within the world’s most restricted borders.

In Myanmar, caught between the need to aid its people and the reflex to hide any suggestion of vulnerability, the junta has been consistent in its choice. After the tsunami of December 2004, Myanmar’s generals made the World Food Program wait two weeks before its workers could even visit the affected areas.

Four years later, Indian meteorologists were warning of Cyclone Nargis as early as April 26. As predicted, the cyclone made landfall in Myanmar on May 2 — the eve of World Press Freedom Day. The irony is worth noting because the tragedy wasn’t that India’s advisories fell on deaf ears. Rather, they were relayed to the gagged.

Myanmar has the worst conditions for press freedom and access to information in Southeast Asia. All broadcasting systems are state-owned and the largest newspapers are controlled by the government. The junta’s censorship of publications is so thorough (and deliberately slow) that daily papers do not exist. The Internet, too, is heavily restricted and monitored and foreign journalists are routinely denied visas into the country.

As a result, the rescue and relief efforts in Myanmar will inevitably continue to be tragic. By now it is plain that the junta’s uncompromising policies regarding the press and access to information are a source not only of political repression, but also of humanitarian emergency. Aid workers are not the only essential element for relief and recovery that the country’s callous leaders are denying their people.

Roby Alampay, an Asia Society fellow, is the executive director of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance.