BANGALORE: In hilarious slip-ups in the Aadhaar card enrolment
process, some cards have ended up with pictures of an empty chair, a
tree or a dog instead of the actual applicants.
Asked about the cases, where data collected from applicants were not
reflected on the cards, Unique Identity Authority of India (UIDAI)
deputy director general Ashok Dalwai said no system was foolproof.
"There have been some errors," he said.
"We had even come across an empty chair printed as the applicant's
photo on an Aadhaar card. This could have happened due to the
operator's mistake. We look for accuracy in the fingerprints and
photograph. The operator might have copied a wrong photo, but it may
have matched only because of a lack of clarity. To avoid such errors,
we have in place another team to go through the printed Aadhaar cards,
to check for manual duplication."
Acknowledging slip-ups in the Aadhaar enrolment process, UIDAI deputy
director general Ashok Dalwai told TOI there have been cases where an
operator's fingerprints had been registered instead of the
applicant's. "This could have happened while the operator was guiding
the applicant on where and how to put his finger during data
enrolment," he said.
"We have four attempts in which the right data has to be fed into the
system. In some cases, the operators have registered their own
fingerprints by mistake," he added.
In such cases, Aadhaar enrolment is rejected and the applicant
informed about the rejection. Such applicants have to undergo fresh
enrolment.
Dalwai said no one should apply more than once for an Aadhaar card
unless he/she receives a rejection letter from the UIDAI. "Please
don't reapply for the card," he said. "The applicant can reapply only
in the case of rejection of the accuracy of data and only on getting a
rejection letter. Otherwise, it's a waste of time for us and the
applicant."
Friday, 31 May 2013
Bastar Maoist attack: Did someone change route of convoy?
NEW DELHI: As investigations by different agencies into the Darbha
massacre in Chhattisgarh gather momentum, it is now emerging that
there may actually have been a last-minute change in the route of
Congress cavalcade diverting it to Darbha Ghati where 28 people,
including senior Congress leaders, were gunned down by Maoists in an
ambush last Saturday.
Sources in CRPF, which conducted spot inquiry into the lapses that led
to the attack, say that not only were there glaring mistakes committed
by the security apparatus, there are also strong indications that
someone got the route of the Congress rally changed at the last
minute.
Sources said it was natural for the Congress rally to come via Gadiras
in Dantewada as it wanted to cover more areas in the tribal belt. "It
had already done the Darbha Ghati route while going to Sukma from
Jagdalpur. Several sources told us that the original plan to come to
Jagdalpur was via Gadiras in Dantewada. However, it is not clear when,
how and who suggested a change of route," said an officer privy to the
details of spot enquiry.
The rally plan given to Chhattisgarh Police did not mention preference
of route, said sources. It only mentioned about journey from Jagdalpur
to Sukma and back. "The route plans were intimated orally to the
police hours before taking them and accordingly security arrangements
were made," said the officer.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is probing the
incident, will look into this matter, said sources. If the information
is found to be correct, it would point to a conspiracy where the
agency would have to ascertain whether the route change suggestion was
given to save time — there is a difference of 50km between the two
routes — or with prior knowledge of an ambush.
Sources said, the security set up was found to be fairly inadequate as
there were only three state police personnel with each company of
CRPF. "That is why between Darbha and Togpal forces could do road
opening only upto 5 km on each side on a stretch of 25 km. The
incident occurred right in the middle," the officer added.
Enquiry found that Naxalite-leaning villagers were stationed at
certain intervals on the route and gave real time relay signals of the
approaching cavalcade to the Maoists.
There were also lapses on part of the state police in failing to
conduct even a coordination meeting on security where proper stock of
the situation would be taken and responsibilities divided among
central and state forces for rally security. All decisions were left
to local police even as the district SP was absent.
massacre in Chhattisgarh gather momentum, it is now emerging that
there may actually have been a last-minute change in the route of
Congress cavalcade diverting it to Darbha Ghati where 28 people,
including senior Congress leaders, were gunned down by Maoists in an
ambush last Saturday.
Sources in CRPF, which conducted spot inquiry into the lapses that led
to the attack, say that not only were there glaring mistakes committed
by the security apparatus, there are also strong indications that
someone got the route of the Congress rally changed at the last
minute.
Sources said it was natural for the Congress rally to come via Gadiras
in Dantewada as it wanted to cover more areas in the tribal belt. "It
had already done the Darbha Ghati route while going to Sukma from
Jagdalpur. Several sources told us that the original plan to come to
Jagdalpur was via Gadiras in Dantewada. However, it is not clear when,
how and who suggested a change of route," said an officer privy to the
details of spot enquiry.
The rally plan given to Chhattisgarh Police did not mention preference
of route, said sources. It only mentioned about journey from Jagdalpur
to Sukma and back. "The route plans were intimated orally to the
police hours before taking them and accordingly security arrangements
were made," said the officer.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is probing the
incident, will look into this matter, said sources. If the information
is found to be correct, it would point to a conspiracy where the
agency would have to ascertain whether the route change suggestion was
given to save time — there is a difference of 50km between the two
routes — or with prior knowledge of an ambush.
Sources said, the security set up was found to be fairly inadequate as
there were only three state police personnel with each company of
CRPF. "That is why between Darbha and Togpal forces could do road
opening only upto 5 km on each side on a stretch of 25 km. The
incident occurred right in the middle," the officer added.
Enquiry found that Naxalite-leaning villagers were stationed at
certain intervals on the route and gave real time relay signals of the
approaching cavalcade to the Maoists.
There were also lapses on part of the state police in failing to
conduct even a coordination meeting on security where proper stock of
the situation would be taken and responsibilities divided among
central and state forces for rally security. All decisions were left
to local police even as the district SP was absent.
When the dragon comes calling
The new Chinese leadership wants to reach out to India and New Delhi
should make the most of the opportunity to move forward on the
strategic and economic fronts
Diplomatic scorecards are notoriously difficult to draw up. The game
goes on for too long and the points scored are often incommensurable.
Yet the temptation to pronounce an immediate verdict is difficult to
resist. Indeed, during the Chinese Premier's recent visit, the only
question that seemed of interest was: who got the better of the other?
However, any serious assessment of the visit should focus on questions
of continuity and change. After all, India will have to deal with this
Chinese leadership for the next decade or so.
Let us start with the big picture. Did Premier Li Keqiang's decision
to visit India on his first official trip abroad indicate anything
significant? Many seasoned Indian observers, including former
diplomats, have sought to deny this. Premier Li himself insisted that
the visit was meant "to demonstrate the high importance the Chinese
government attaches to India." This, in turn, reflects the wider
international considerations confronting China.
'Pivot' to East Asia
From a strategic standpoint, China faces a worsening situation along
its maritime periphery in the East China and South China seas — thanks
to its own swaggering style in recent years. The United States has
seized the opportunity to announce a "pivot" to East Asia. The Chinese
naturally assume that the move is aimed at them. More worrying to
Beijing is the new government in Tokyo — under the leadership of
Shinzo Abe — that seeks to reinterpret, if not rewrite, Japan's
pacifist Constitution and to invigorate ties with countries like
India.
From an economic perspective, too, the situation seems less than
sanguine. The U.S. is promoting a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Signed in 2005 by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, the TPP
has drawn the interest of five other countries: Australia, Malaysia,
Peru, Vietnam and Japan. The TPP has an ambitious tripartite agenda.
It aims at a regular Free Trade Agreement with provisions for
protecting intellectual property; at the creation of investor-friendly
regulatory frameworks and policies; and at emerging issues, including
measures to ensure that state-owned companies "compete fairly" with
private companies and do not put the latter at a disadvantage. China
regards the TPP as an economic grouping directed at it. Here too, the
immediate cause for concern is the position of Japan. Prime Minister
Abe has announced his intention to push for Japan's entry into the TPP
and his willingness to take on the strong agriculture lobby that
opposes the idea. The Chinese are well aware that a successful TPP may
eventually compel China to come to terms with it — just as China had
to do with APEC and WTO.
In this context, it not surprising that the Chinese leadership wants
to reach out to India. Beijing knows that India is a "swing" power in
the present strategic constellation. Its choices could alleviate or
exacerbate China's problems. Premier Li was seeking reassurance as
well as reassuring India when he publicly stated that "we are not a
threat to each other, nor will we ever contain each other." China also
knows that the TPP will not be welcome to India either. Moreover, the
Chinese are keen on expanding economic ties with India, especially by
tapping into Indian markets. They also want to begin negotiations with
India on a China-India Regional Trading Arrangement (RTA).
All this opens a few windows of opportunity for India. These are
unlikely to remain open forever, so it is important that we make the
most of them. The government has been quick off the blocks, but more
needs to be done.
First, there is the possibility of progress on the boundary
negotiations. So far, the Chinese seemed reluctant to follow through
on the political parameters agreed upon in 2005. In particular, they
were less than happy with the provision which suggested that areas
with settled populations would not be up for grabs. When Premier Wen
Jiabao visited India in 2010, he openly said that the boundary dispute
would take long to settle. The current Chinese leadership appears to
have a different stance. Both President Xi Jinping and Premier Li have
indicated that they would like to move forward as soon as possible. It
is conceivable that they are offering progress on this issue to
palliate India. But it would be unwise to prejudge this issue.
Besides, any progress, however limited, will be in our interest.
The Chinese have also indicated that they want to strengthen the
mechanisms for maintenance of peace and tranquillity along the
frontiers. But it is unlikely that they will agree to commence an
exercise on clarifying the Line of Actual Control. The Chinese have
always insisted that this would be a distraction from the main task of
settling the boundary dispute. In any case, given the differences
between the two sides' perceptions of the LAC — especially in the
Ladakh sector — such an exercise would be doomed to failure.
Greater market access
Second, there is an opportunity to press for greater market access for
Indian firms in China. New Delhi has rightly insisted that further
deepening of economic ties will depend on redressing the prevailing
imbalance in trade. The Chinese leadership, too, is aware that the
current pattern of trade is unsustainable. Premier Li has said that
his government will work towards rectifying this situation both by
facilitating market access to Indian companies and by encouraging
Chinese firms to increase investment in India and expand trade in
services.
Even as the government keeps the pressure on this issue, it should get
its own act together for attracting investment from China. To be sure,
New Delhi has expressed interest in Chinese investment, particularly
in infrastructure. But it hasn't put its money where its mouth is.
Take the case of China Light and Power (CLP), which has invested in a
1320 MW power plant in Jhajjar, Haryana. This is India's largest
foreign direct investment in this sector. The plant was commissioned
ahead of schedule in 2012. Since then, it has languished for the lack
of coal supplies from Coal India Limited. The CLP's position is fast
becoming untenable, but the government has not been responsive. This
can scarcely be encouraging to other Chinese firms contemplating
investment in India.
Regional issues
Bilateral matters apart, the two sides also seem poised to work
together on regional issues like Afghanistan. Interestingly, it was
China which suggested earlier this year that they begin a dialogue on
Afghanistan. Both countries are concerned about the situation in
Afghanistan after the NATO withdrawal in 2014. Instability in
Afghanistan is bound to impact on existing and proposed investments of
India and China in that country. China has already made a successful
bid for the copper mines in Anyak and is keen to acquire stakes in
extraction of other natural resources.
In talking to India, China's interest may simply be to secure support
for its increasing presence in Afghanistan. But there seems to be more
in play here. Beijing is evidently not confident that Pakistan will be
able to secure Chinese interests in Afghanistan after the western
forces pull out. This is not to suggest that China's strategic
relationship with Pakistan is weakening. Indeed, Premier Li has had a
rather good visit to Pakistan. Yet Pakistan's ability to deliver in
Afghanistan, especially if the security situation markedly worsens, is
open to question.
The simple fact is that the main outlet for any resources to flow into
China will be through the north of Afghanistan. Pakistan and its
proxies have no influence in these parts. Conversely, the groups whose
writ runs in these areas have a good relationship with India. At any
rate, if Afghanistan descends into something like a civil war,
Pakistan cannot be of much help to China. It is in Beijing's own
interest, therefore, to ensure that Pakistan doesn't stir the pot too
vigorously after 2014.
So, the present strategic conjuncture presents interesting
possibilities for India. New Delhi should neglect the naysayers and
press ahead with engaging China on all fronts.
should make the most of the opportunity to move forward on the
strategic and economic fronts
Diplomatic scorecards are notoriously difficult to draw up. The game
goes on for too long and the points scored are often incommensurable.
Yet the temptation to pronounce an immediate verdict is difficult to
resist. Indeed, during the Chinese Premier's recent visit, the only
question that seemed of interest was: who got the better of the other?
However, any serious assessment of the visit should focus on questions
of continuity and change. After all, India will have to deal with this
Chinese leadership for the next decade or so.
Let us start with the big picture. Did Premier Li Keqiang's decision
to visit India on his first official trip abroad indicate anything
significant? Many seasoned Indian observers, including former
diplomats, have sought to deny this. Premier Li himself insisted that
the visit was meant "to demonstrate the high importance the Chinese
government attaches to India." This, in turn, reflects the wider
international considerations confronting China.
'Pivot' to East Asia
From a strategic standpoint, China faces a worsening situation along
its maritime periphery in the East China and South China seas — thanks
to its own swaggering style in recent years. The United States has
seized the opportunity to announce a "pivot" to East Asia. The Chinese
naturally assume that the move is aimed at them. More worrying to
Beijing is the new government in Tokyo — under the leadership of
Shinzo Abe — that seeks to reinterpret, if not rewrite, Japan's
pacifist Constitution and to invigorate ties with countries like
India.
From an economic perspective, too, the situation seems less than
sanguine. The U.S. is promoting a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Signed in 2005 by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, the TPP
has drawn the interest of five other countries: Australia, Malaysia,
Peru, Vietnam and Japan. The TPP has an ambitious tripartite agenda.
It aims at a regular Free Trade Agreement with provisions for
protecting intellectual property; at the creation of investor-friendly
regulatory frameworks and policies; and at emerging issues, including
measures to ensure that state-owned companies "compete fairly" with
private companies and do not put the latter at a disadvantage. China
regards the TPP as an economic grouping directed at it. Here too, the
immediate cause for concern is the position of Japan. Prime Minister
Abe has announced his intention to push for Japan's entry into the TPP
and his willingness to take on the strong agriculture lobby that
opposes the idea. The Chinese are well aware that a successful TPP may
eventually compel China to come to terms with it — just as China had
to do with APEC and WTO.
In this context, it not surprising that the Chinese leadership wants
to reach out to India. Beijing knows that India is a "swing" power in
the present strategic constellation. Its choices could alleviate or
exacerbate China's problems. Premier Li was seeking reassurance as
well as reassuring India when he publicly stated that "we are not a
threat to each other, nor will we ever contain each other." China also
knows that the TPP will not be welcome to India either. Moreover, the
Chinese are keen on expanding economic ties with India, especially by
tapping into Indian markets. They also want to begin negotiations with
India on a China-India Regional Trading Arrangement (RTA).
All this opens a few windows of opportunity for India. These are
unlikely to remain open forever, so it is important that we make the
most of them. The government has been quick off the blocks, but more
needs to be done.
First, there is the possibility of progress on the boundary
negotiations. So far, the Chinese seemed reluctant to follow through
on the political parameters agreed upon in 2005. In particular, they
were less than happy with the provision which suggested that areas
with settled populations would not be up for grabs. When Premier Wen
Jiabao visited India in 2010, he openly said that the boundary dispute
would take long to settle. The current Chinese leadership appears to
have a different stance. Both President Xi Jinping and Premier Li have
indicated that they would like to move forward as soon as possible. It
is conceivable that they are offering progress on this issue to
palliate India. But it would be unwise to prejudge this issue.
Besides, any progress, however limited, will be in our interest.
The Chinese have also indicated that they want to strengthen the
mechanisms for maintenance of peace and tranquillity along the
frontiers. But it is unlikely that they will agree to commence an
exercise on clarifying the Line of Actual Control. The Chinese have
always insisted that this would be a distraction from the main task of
settling the boundary dispute. In any case, given the differences
between the two sides' perceptions of the LAC — especially in the
Ladakh sector — such an exercise would be doomed to failure.
Greater market access
Second, there is an opportunity to press for greater market access for
Indian firms in China. New Delhi has rightly insisted that further
deepening of economic ties will depend on redressing the prevailing
imbalance in trade. The Chinese leadership, too, is aware that the
current pattern of trade is unsustainable. Premier Li has said that
his government will work towards rectifying this situation both by
facilitating market access to Indian companies and by encouraging
Chinese firms to increase investment in India and expand trade in
services.
Even as the government keeps the pressure on this issue, it should get
its own act together for attracting investment from China. To be sure,
New Delhi has expressed interest in Chinese investment, particularly
in infrastructure. But it hasn't put its money where its mouth is.
Take the case of China Light and Power (CLP), which has invested in a
1320 MW power plant in Jhajjar, Haryana. This is India's largest
foreign direct investment in this sector. The plant was commissioned
ahead of schedule in 2012. Since then, it has languished for the lack
of coal supplies from Coal India Limited. The CLP's position is fast
becoming untenable, but the government has not been responsive. This
can scarcely be encouraging to other Chinese firms contemplating
investment in India.
Regional issues
Bilateral matters apart, the two sides also seem poised to work
together on regional issues like Afghanistan. Interestingly, it was
China which suggested earlier this year that they begin a dialogue on
Afghanistan. Both countries are concerned about the situation in
Afghanistan after the NATO withdrawal in 2014. Instability in
Afghanistan is bound to impact on existing and proposed investments of
India and China in that country. China has already made a successful
bid for the copper mines in Anyak and is keen to acquire stakes in
extraction of other natural resources.
In talking to India, China's interest may simply be to secure support
for its increasing presence in Afghanistan. But there seems to be more
in play here. Beijing is evidently not confident that Pakistan will be
able to secure Chinese interests in Afghanistan after the western
forces pull out. This is not to suggest that China's strategic
relationship with Pakistan is weakening. Indeed, Premier Li has had a
rather good visit to Pakistan. Yet Pakistan's ability to deliver in
Afghanistan, especially if the security situation markedly worsens, is
open to question.
The simple fact is that the main outlet for any resources to flow into
China will be through the north of Afghanistan. Pakistan and its
proxies have no influence in these parts. Conversely, the groups whose
writ runs in these areas have a good relationship with India. At any
rate, if Afghanistan descends into something like a civil war,
Pakistan cannot be of much help to China. It is in Beijing's own
interest, therefore, to ensure that Pakistan doesn't stir the pot too
vigorously after 2014.
So, the present strategic conjuncture presents interesting
possibilities for India. New Delhi should neglect the naysayers and
press ahead with engaging China on all fronts.
Minimum need
Aruna Roy's decision to terminate her relationship with the Sonia
Gandhi-led National Advisory Council has returned the spotlight to the
ideological divide within the ruling establishment on welfare
spending. As the civil rights activist noted in her letter to the
Congress president, the rupture came over the Manmohan Singh
government's refusal to pay statutory minimum wages to workers under
the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act —
admittedly the largest rights-based safety net programme anywhere in
the world. One of the first things the UPA government did upon earning
a second term in 2009 was to acknowledge its debt to the aam aadmi by
renaming the NREGA after Mahatma Gandhi. Yet in a monumental affront
to the father of the nation, it declined to pay minimum wages to
MGNREGA workers, arguing that the scheme was designed more as social
security for the desperately poor than as regular employment requiring
payment of floor-level wages. The government's intransigence
expectedly placed it in direct conflict with its own advisory body,
with the battle being led by none other than Ms Gandhi.
Perhaps taking a cue from the Congress chief, some Congress State
governments too have made bold to oppose the Centre's line, indicating
a deep government-party divide on the issue. However, more damagingly
for the UPA government, at least two High Courts have held payment of
minimum wages to be mandatory, which situation has not altered in view
of the Supreme Court's refusal to stay the Karnataka High Court's
decision. As Ms Gandhi pointed out in her letter to the Prime
Minister, the apex court had itself in an earlier judgment equated
non-payment of minimum wages with "forced labour," which was violative
of an important Fundamental Right. A part of the problem stems from
deficiencies within the job guarantee Act. Section 6(1) of the Act
empowers the Central government to notify the wage rate independent of
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. And yet, legal opinion in this country is
near unanimous in defining minimum wage, not as a 'fair and living'
wage but as the minimum required for bare subsistence. So when the
government nitpicks on giving out even the minimum, it places itself
in opposition to the poor and needy, who ironically form the
Congress's core constituency. MGNREGA has not just been life-giving,
it has generated employment, halted distress migration and bonded
labour and raised wage levels in the private sector where exploitation
of workers is rampant. The government should look beyond the immediate
to long-term economic benefits from going robustly ahead with the
landmark programme.
Gandhi-led National Advisory Council has returned the spotlight to the
ideological divide within the ruling establishment on welfare
spending. As the civil rights activist noted in her letter to the
Congress president, the rupture came over the Manmohan Singh
government's refusal to pay statutory minimum wages to workers under
the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act —
admittedly the largest rights-based safety net programme anywhere in
the world. One of the first things the UPA government did upon earning
a second term in 2009 was to acknowledge its debt to the aam aadmi by
renaming the NREGA after Mahatma Gandhi. Yet in a monumental affront
to the father of the nation, it declined to pay minimum wages to
MGNREGA workers, arguing that the scheme was designed more as social
security for the desperately poor than as regular employment requiring
payment of floor-level wages. The government's intransigence
expectedly placed it in direct conflict with its own advisory body,
with the battle being led by none other than Ms Gandhi.
Perhaps taking a cue from the Congress chief, some Congress State
governments too have made bold to oppose the Centre's line, indicating
a deep government-party divide on the issue. However, more damagingly
for the UPA government, at least two High Courts have held payment of
minimum wages to be mandatory, which situation has not altered in view
of the Supreme Court's refusal to stay the Karnataka High Court's
decision. As Ms Gandhi pointed out in her letter to the Prime
Minister, the apex court had itself in an earlier judgment equated
non-payment of minimum wages with "forced labour," which was violative
of an important Fundamental Right. A part of the problem stems from
deficiencies within the job guarantee Act. Section 6(1) of the Act
empowers the Central government to notify the wage rate independent of
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. And yet, legal opinion in this country is
near unanimous in defining minimum wage, not as a 'fair and living'
wage but as the minimum required for bare subsistence. So when the
government nitpicks on giving out even the minimum, it places itself
in opposition to the poor and needy, who ironically form the
Congress's core constituency. MGNREGA has not just been life-giving,
it has generated employment, halted distress migration and bonded
labour and raised wage levels in the private sector where exploitation
of workers is rampant. The government should look beyond the immediate
to long-term economic benefits from going robustly ahead with the
landmark programme.
LOOKING EAST
Few had expected India and Japan to sign a deal on civil nuclear
co-operation during Manmohan Singh's just-concluded visit to Tokyo.
But the joint statement issued after Mr Singh's meeting with Shinzo
Abe is enough evidence that both sides are keener on the deal than
before. Both sides have now agreed to accelerate talks on such an
agreement. Given strong domestic opinions on the issue in Japan and
the fears resulting from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power
plant in March 2011, this is a major step forward. Both countries have
come to view a nuclear co-operation agreement as crucial to their
economic agenda. Mr Abe's administration now sees the export of
nuclear plant technology as a major plank of its agenda for economic
revival. It sees India as a huge potential market for nuclear plant
technology. For energy-starved India, nuclear power is crucial to
maintaining the current level of economic growth. But the joint
statement points to a more significant direction in India-Japan
relations in the near future. Both countries now share a commitment to
deepen bilateral engagement in both economic and security-related
areas. The co-operation is now expected to cover issues relating to a
peaceful and stable future, as Mr Singh put it, of the Asia-Pacific
and the Indian Ocean regions.
New Delhi's enhanced engagement with Tokyo is a clear departure from
past strategies. Until recently, India's ties with Japan would be
conditioned by possible Chinese responses. India would be careful not
to strike any deal with Japan that might be viewed with suspicion in
Beijing. But China's recent rise, which is not seen by its neighbours
as entirely peaceful, has changed equations and perceptions among
countries in the region. Beijing's territorial disputes with several
of its neighbours, including Japan and India, have caused new tensions
in the region. Increasingly, countries in the area feel the need for a
stable balance of power in Asia, in which India and Japan are expected
to play a crucial role. True, an expansion of India-Japan defence
co-operation could make Beijing uneasy. But New Delhi should not allow
the 'China factor' to sway its ties with other countries in Asia. At
the same time, India should be careful not to be seen entering into or
even encouraging any military alliance aimed at containing China.
India's search for new friends in the East need not be at the cost of
other bilateral ties.
co-operation during Manmohan Singh's just-concluded visit to Tokyo.
But the joint statement issued after Mr Singh's meeting with Shinzo
Abe is enough evidence that both sides are keener on the deal than
before. Both sides have now agreed to accelerate talks on such an
agreement. Given strong domestic opinions on the issue in Japan and
the fears resulting from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power
plant in March 2011, this is a major step forward. Both countries have
come to view a nuclear co-operation agreement as crucial to their
economic agenda. Mr Abe's administration now sees the export of
nuclear plant technology as a major plank of its agenda for economic
revival. It sees India as a huge potential market for nuclear plant
technology. For energy-starved India, nuclear power is crucial to
maintaining the current level of economic growth. But the joint
statement points to a more significant direction in India-Japan
relations in the near future. Both countries now share a commitment to
deepen bilateral engagement in both economic and security-related
areas. The co-operation is now expected to cover issues relating to a
peaceful and stable future, as Mr Singh put it, of the Asia-Pacific
and the Indian Ocean regions.
New Delhi's enhanced engagement with Tokyo is a clear departure from
past strategies. Until recently, India's ties with Japan would be
conditioned by possible Chinese responses. India would be careful not
to strike any deal with Japan that might be viewed with suspicion in
Beijing. But China's recent rise, which is not seen by its neighbours
as entirely peaceful, has changed equations and perceptions among
countries in the region. Beijing's territorial disputes with several
of its neighbours, including Japan and India, have caused new tensions
in the region. Increasingly, countries in the area feel the need for a
stable balance of power in Asia, in which India and Japan are expected
to play a crucial role. True, an expansion of India-Japan defence
co-operation could make Beijing uneasy. But New Delhi should not allow
the 'China factor' to sway its ties with other countries in Asia. At
the same time, India should be careful not to be seen entering into or
even encouraging any military alliance aimed at containing China.
India's search for new friends in the East need not be at the cost of
other bilateral ties.
Now, politics with dummies
There is a strong conservative streak beneath Mumbai's cosmopolitan
surface and politicians know how to mine it
With so many problems troubling the sprawling metropolis of Mumbai —
garbage collection, infectious diseases and of course potholes —
anyone would think that the city's municipal corporators would be
working overtime to find some solutions. Instead, their time and
attention is being spent on trying to clean up the moral turpitude of
the citizens. They have declared war on mannequins — yes, those
expressionless plastic dolls — on display inside and outside shops
that sell women's lingerie. (Presumably, those mannequins that wear
saris will remain unaffected.)
It all began with a municipal corporator belonging to the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) who declared these mannequins were embarrassing to
women and also evoked lusty and even criminal feelings in men. Plus,
not surprisingly, they also represented corrupt western culture, since
they were usually found wearing lacy — and therefore racy — lingerie.
Every time she passed the roadside stalls and shops in her
constituency — the middle-class, central Mumbai suburb, Ghatkopar —
and saw these lifeless models clad only in bras and other
unmentionables, she was appalled. So she asked the Municipal
Corporation to do something about it.
'Against Indian culture'
It would have remained as a politician's personal view, but it
escalated. Her idea appealed to the Mayor, Sunil Prabhu, who belongs
to the Shiv Sena, which is an ally of the BJP. He immediately put it
to vote and the 227-member general body of the BMC passed a resolution
demanding that the Municipal Commissioner frame a policy on "indecent
display in public areas." This will give powers to civil officials to
order shopkeepers to remove a mannequin if they think it is dressed in
a way that will "provoke" men to commit crimes against women.
Naturally, shopkeepers are appalled at this blatant intrusion into
their commercial affairs and even the BMC's own officials are reported
to have cried off from taking on this responsibility, stating that
such matters would come under the police. The municipality's
responsibility ends at ensuring no zoning laws are broken by
encroaching on public space; enforcing public morality is not their
problem.
The corporator, Ms Tawade, and her colleagues, especially from the BJP
and the Sena, put up a defence of their demand, which centred mainly
on the "against Indian culture" line and its alleged connection with
crimes against women. To many citizens, the whole matter looked silly
and moral policing of the worst kind. This is how the city reacted, if
one were to go by the mocking comments in newspapers and on social
media.
It would be a mistake to think that there are no supporters of this
kind of thinking. They may not write to the newspapers, may not tweet
or post on their Facebook account and also not appear on talk shows,
but the municipal corporators, who represent citizens at grass-roots
level, do understand their constituency well. They know that however
progressive Mumbai might appear on the surface, there is a strong
conservative streak that remains invisible. Unsaid, at least openly,
is the divide between those who believe in "Indian culture" and the
deracinated elite which has embraced foreign ways. Every now and then,
this conservatism comes out into the open, startling those who nurture
fond notions of the city's liberal — and westernised — ethos.
Policing Marine Drive
In the 1990s, a prominent Shiv Sena leader, Pramod Navalkar began a
campaign against canoodling couples on the Marine Drive promenade. In
a city devoid of privacy, Marine Drive — and several other similar
spots such as seafronts and parks — offer a degree of anonymity to
youngsters. The couples are usually left alone by passers-by but
Navalkar wasn't going to and went after them.
He is long gone, but public display of affection (PDA) is frowned upon
by not just politicians but also the police. Couples routinely report
being harassed by the police who ask them to leave if found to be
getting too intimate. Some months ago, a boy was taken to the police
station because he gave a peck on the cheek of a female friend.
Last year's onslaught on drinking places and nightclubs was greeted by
many Mumbai residents who said they worried that their children were
getting corrupted. They even supported the aggressive tactics of
Assistant Commissioner Dhoble who used to carry a hockey stick to
frighten errant bar owners and had been caught on video pushing a few
people around.
Bar dancers
More often than not, while all kinds of reasons for taking any action
are advanced — alien cultural practices, legal technicalities or even
security — the conservative impulse hides a reformist mindset. In
2005, the Minister of Home, R.R. Patil, banned bar dancers all over
the State, claiming that many migrants from Nepal and Bangladesh were
in the trade. But Mr. Patil has long harboured a reformist zeal to
banish social ills, much like Anna Hazare, who backed the minister to
the hilt. It did not matter that thousands of young girls were thrown
out of work overnight — the government did not for a moment consider
that they be given some economic help or rehabilitation. All that
mattered was that the morals of the public, especially lustful men,
were protected.
In the case of mannequins, no jobs will be lost and no one but the
shopkeepers who find the dummies useful to advertise their wares will
really be affected. Undoubtedly, the vendors will find a way to get
around this rule too. It is not a major issue that affects the public
in any significant way. But this is yet another example of the assault
on the broad-mindedness of Mumbai by the forces of reaction, which
diminishes this city bit by bit.
surface and politicians know how to mine it
With so many problems troubling the sprawling metropolis of Mumbai —
garbage collection, infectious diseases and of course potholes —
anyone would think that the city's municipal corporators would be
working overtime to find some solutions. Instead, their time and
attention is being spent on trying to clean up the moral turpitude of
the citizens. They have declared war on mannequins — yes, those
expressionless plastic dolls — on display inside and outside shops
that sell women's lingerie. (Presumably, those mannequins that wear
saris will remain unaffected.)
It all began with a municipal corporator belonging to the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) who declared these mannequins were embarrassing to
women and also evoked lusty and even criminal feelings in men. Plus,
not surprisingly, they also represented corrupt western culture, since
they were usually found wearing lacy — and therefore racy — lingerie.
Every time she passed the roadside stalls and shops in her
constituency — the middle-class, central Mumbai suburb, Ghatkopar —
and saw these lifeless models clad only in bras and other
unmentionables, she was appalled. So she asked the Municipal
Corporation to do something about it.
'Against Indian culture'
It would have remained as a politician's personal view, but it
escalated. Her idea appealed to the Mayor, Sunil Prabhu, who belongs
to the Shiv Sena, which is an ally of the BJP. He immediately put it
to vote and the 227-member general body of the BMC passed a resolution
demanding that the Municipal Commissioner frame a policy on "indecent
display in public areas." This will give powers to civil officials to
order shopkeepers to remove a mannequin if they think it is dressed in
a way that will "provoke" men to commit crimes against women.
Naturally, shopkeepers are appalled at this blatant intrusion into
their commercial affairs and even the BMC's own officials are reported
to have cried off from taking on this responsibility, stating that
such matters would come under the police. The municipality's
responsibility ends at ensuring no zoning laws are broken by
encroaching on public space; enforcing public morality is not their
problem.
The corporator, Ms Tawade, and her colleagues, especially from the BJP
and the Sena, put up a defence of their demand, which centred mainly
on the "against Indian culture" line and its alleged connection with
crimes against women. To many citizens, the whole matter looked silly
and moral policing of the worst kind. This is how the city reacted, if
one were to go by the mocking comments in newspapers and on social
media.
It would be a mistake to think that there are no supporters of this
kind of thinking. They may not write to the newspapers, may not tweet
or post on their Facebook account and also not appear on talk shows,
but the municipal corporators, who represent citizens at grass-roots
level, do understand their constituency well. They know that however
progressive Mumbai might appear on the surface, there is a strong
conservative streak that remains invisible. Unsaid, at least openly,
is the divide between those who believe in "Indian culture" and the
deracinated elite which has embraced foreign ways. Every now and then,
this conservatism comes out into the open, startling those who nurture
fond notions of the city's liberal — and westernised — ethos.
Policing Marine Drive
In the 1990s, a prominent Shiv Sena leader, Pramod Navalkar began a
campaign against canoodling couples on the Marine Drive promenade. In
a city devoid of privacy, Marine Drive — and several other similar
spots such as seafronts and parks — offer a degree of anonymity to
youngsters. The couples are usually left alone by passers-by but
Navalkar wasn't going to and went after them.
He is long gone, but public display of affection (PDA) is frowned upon
by not just politicians but also the police. Couples routinely report
being harassed by the police who ask them to leave if found to be
getting too intimate. Some months ago, a boy was taken to the police
station because he gave a peck on the cheek of a female friend.
Last year's onslaught on drinking places and nightclubs was greeted by
many Mumbai residents who said they worried that their children were
getting corrupted. They even supported the aggressive tactics of
Assistant Commissioner Dhoble who used to carry a hockey stick to
frighten errant bar owners and had been caught on video pushing a few
people around.
Bar dancers
More often than not, while all kinds of reasons for taking any action
are advanced — alien cultural practices, legal technicalities or even
security — the conservative impulse hides a reformist mindset. In
2005, the Minister of Home, R.R. Patil, banned bar dancers all over
the State, claiming that many migrants from Nepal and Bangladesh were
in the trade. But Mr. Patil has long harboured a reformist zeal to
banish social ills, much like Anna Hazare, who backed the minister to
the hilt. It did not matter that thousands of young girls were thrown
out of work overnight — the government did not for a moment consider
that they be given some economic help or rehabilitation. All that
mattered was that the morals of the public, especially lustful men,
were protected.
In the case of mannequins, no jobs will be lost and no one but the
shopkeepers who find the dummies useful to advertise their wares will
really be affected. Undoubtedly, the vendors will find a way to get
around this rule too. It is not a major issue that affects the public
in any significant way. But this is yet another example of the assault
on the broad-mindedness of Mumbai by the forces of reaction, which
diminishes this city bit by bit.
Reviews: ‘Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani
ByWSJ Staff
- A still from 'Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani.'
A romantic comedy with a young cast of Bollywood stars set in the Himalayas has all the elements for box office success in India.
But when the lead romantic roles are played by stars who used to date in real life, the audience has all the more incentive to buy a ticket.
That's the combination in this week's Bollywood release "Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani" ('This Youth is Crazy').
Four friends go on a trekking trip in Manali in the foothills of the Himalayas and the characters played by Ranbir Kapoor and Deepika Padukone, who used to be an item, fall in love.
Bunny (Kapoor) is with his friends Avi (Aditya Roy Kapoor) and Aditi (Kalki Koechlin) waiting to catch a train to Manali when he meets Naina (Padukone).
She falls for Bunny but the bachelor isn't keen to be tied down.
After their trip they all go their separate ways but reunite eight years later at Aditi's wedding.
The film explores how each of the characters has grown emotionally since their first vacation together.
Here's a roundup of what critics had to say about the film.
In a review on Bollywoodhungama, movie critic Taran Adarsh praised the film's director Ayan Mukherji, who he says has grown as a raconteur.
"…Ayan's characters never embark upon the run of the mill, mundane route to express feeling towards each other," Mr. Adarsh said.
The film's biggest strength in the critic's opinion, is the fact that Mr. Kapoor's character doesn't "borrow from romantic clichés."
"The message that Ayan attempts to convey is wonderfully real: There's more to life than conquering peaks and achieving targets. Sharing the precious moments with your loved one is what matters eventually," he said.
The film goes beyond just addressing the youth and its appeal is universal, the critic added.
However he felt that the narrative was a bit drawn out in the second half of the film.
But overall the film was a "revitalizing take on romance and relationships" for Mr. Adarsh, and a "wonderful cinematic experience." He gave it four stars out of five.
Rediff.com's film critic Raja Sen did not share this opinion and thought the film was good-looking but lacked a good story.
Mr. Sen thought that wherever the story didn't have a song, it was predictable and contrived, ultimately making it "quite a bore."
What did work for him were the performances by the lead actors because they are "at their most electrifying," in the film "and the sheer, heady enthusiasm is deliriously grand."
Ms. Padukone plays her character "beautifully," the critic said.
"This may be her most self-aware performance so far, and here's to more of the same," he added.
But apart from that, not much impressed Mr. Sen, who gave the film two stars out of five.
"'Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani' is an extremely pleasant watch," wrote Ananya Bhattacharya in a Zee News review.
She thought that the cinematographer deserved a standing ovation.
"He captures Manali in all its brilliance and more; with shots of the snow-capped mountains being the icing on the cake (the mountains, maybe)!" said Ms. Bhattacharya.
The director's attempt to tell a good story was "decent enough," but the lack of twists in the film could leave the audience a little distracted, in her opinion.
"Somewhat crisper editing could have saved the film from lagging," she added.
However, for this critic, the drawbacks of the film are made up for by a "brilliant cast."
And the soundtrack will stay on repeat play in the audiences' head long after they leave the cinema, the critic said.
The film was far from being "heavy or preachy," and the critic gave it three stars out of five.
Mohar Basu of Koimoi, an entertainment website, also gave the movie a four-star rating. He thought that despite the hype around its release, the story of the film is "imaginatively challenged."
Mr. Basu warns audiences that the film is not about Mr. Kapoor's character trying to "find himself."
"The character knows himself perfectly. It is his difficulty in coming to terms with prioritizing things that matter to him, which forms the story's most exhilarating part," he added.
"Wonderful frames, decadent music and breathtaking performances" made the film come alive for Mr. Basu, despite the fact that it followed a stereotypical narrative.
Even with its narratorial deficiencies, the story seemed honest and believable and that's what worked for the critic.
"It is films like these that make my job feel worthwhile."
NO GAME FOR GOOD MEN
The IPL is a denial of the rights of equal citizenship
I detest wearing a tie, and do so only when forced. One such oc casion was a formal dinner at All Souls College, Oxford, where opposite me was an Is raeli scholar who had just got a job at the University, and was extremely anxious to show how well he knew its ways and mores. He dropped some names, and spoke of his familiarity with the manuscripts collection at 'Bodley' (the Bodleian Library). In be tween his boasts he kept scrutinizing my tie. Then, when he could contain his curiosity no more, he walked across the table, took my tie in his hand, looked at it ever more closely, and asked: "Is this Magdalene?"
I did not answer. How could I? For the tie signalled not membership of a great old Oxford College, but of a rather more obscure institution, the Friends Union Cricket Club in Bangalore. I joined the club in 1963, aged five, because my uncle, a legendary one-handed cricketer named N. Duraiswami, played for it. I would go along with him for practice, stand by the side of the net, and at the end of the day be allowed to bowl a few balls from 12 yards or thereabouts. By the time I was 10, I was helping lay the mat and nail it to the ground. When I reached my teens, I was bowling from where everyone else did.
As a boy and young man, I was an episodic member of the FUCC. In those years, I was based in North India, and came south for my summer and winter holidays. In 1994, I moved to Bangalore for good. In the past two decades, I have watched the FUCC win the First Division Championship three times, and seen a series of young players graduate from club cricket to represent the state in the Ranji Trophy. My club has produced two India internationals and at least 15 Karnataka players, all of whom I have known personally and/or watched play.
Largely because of N. Duraiswami — who has been captain or manager for 40 years now — the FUCC enjoys a reputation that is high both in cricketing and ethical terms. No cricketer of the club has ever tried to use influence to gain state selection. Where other clubs sometimes adjust games to make sure they do not get relegated, the FUCC does not resort to this. The FUCC cricketers do not come late for practice, and never abuse the umpire. And they play some terrific cricket too.
The FUCC was one of a dozen clubs that provided the spine of Karnataka cricket. The others included Jawahar's, Crescents, Bangalore United Cricket Club, Swastic, Bangalore Cricketers and City Cricketers. The men who ran those clubs were likewise personally honest as well as fantastically knowledgeable about the game. The cricketers they produced won Karnataka six Ranji Trophy titles, and won India many Tests and one-day internationals too.
This year, I mark the 50th anniversary of my membership of the FUCC. In this time, the FUCC has commanded my primary cricketing loyalty; followed by my state, Karnataka, and only then by India. Six years ago, however, a new club and a new format entered my city and my life. I was faced with a complicated decision — should I now add a fresh allegiance, to the Royal Challengers Bangalore?
I decided I would not, mostly because I disliked the promoter. In cricketing terms, Vijay Mallya was the Other of N. Duraiswami of the FUCC. He had never played cricket, nor watched much cricket. He had no knowledge of its techniques or its history. He had come into the sport on a massive ego trip, to partake of the glamour and celebrity he saw associated with it. He would buy his way into Indian cricket. And so he did.
It was principally because Mallya was so lacking in the dedicated selflessness of the cricketing coaches and managers I knew, that I decided the RCB would not be my team. So, although I am a member of the Karnataka State Cricket Association and have free entry into its grounds, I continued to reserve that privilege for Ranji Trophy and Test matches alone.
The KSCA stadium is named after its former president, M. Chinnaswamy, who was one of N. Duraiswami's heroes. When I was growing up, Durai would tell me of how Chinnaswamy supervised the building of the stadium, brick by brick. This great lover of cricket abandoned his lucrative law practice for months on end, monitoring the design, the procurement of materials, and the construction, with no cost overruns and absolutely no commissions either. In other ways too, Chinnaswamy was exemplary. Never, in all the years he served the KSCA, did he try to manipulate a single selection. Later, when he became president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, he met the challenge of Kerry Packer by increasing the fees per Test match tenfold. It was while he ran Indian cricket that our players were for the first time treated with dignity and paid a decent wage.
I wonder what M. Chinnaswamy would have made of his grasping, greedy successors as presidents of the BCCI. I wonder, too, what he would have made of a man who can't pay his own employees having a free run of the stadium that Chinnaswamy so lovingly built. This past April, the Bangalore edition of The Hindu carried a front-page story on an summons that the Special Court for Economic Offences had issued to Mallya, who owed the income tax department some 75 crores, which he had not paid despite repeated reminders. The police, waiving the rules for the powerful, as they often do, told the court that they were too busy to execute the summons.
But let me not single out Mallya here. The truth is that almost all the owners (seven out of nine, by one estimate) of the Indian Premier League teams are being investigated by one government agency or another, in one country or another, for economic offences of one kind or another. Since this is a shady operation run by shady characters, Indian companies known for their professionalism, entrepreneurial innovation and technical excellence have stayed away from the IPL altogether. Here is a question for those who still think the tournament is worth defending — why is it that companies like the Tatas, the Mahindras or Infosys have not promoted an IPL team?
To this writer, that the IPL was corrupt from top to bottom (and side to side) was clear from the start —which is why I have never exercised my right of free entry into its matches in Bangalore. But as I watched the tournament unfold, I saw also that it was deeply divisive in a sociological sense. It was a tamasha for the rich and upwardly mobile living in the cities of southern and western India. Rural and small town India were largely left out, as were the most populous states of the Union. That Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, both of which have excellent Ranji Trophy records, had no IPL team between them, while Maharashtra had two, was symptomatic of the tournament's identification with the powerful and the moneyed. The entire structure of the IPL was a denial of the rights of equal citizenship that a truly 'national' game should promote.
The IPL is representative of the worst sides of Indian capitalism and Indian society. Corrupt and cronyist, it has also promoted chamchagiri and compliance. The behaviour of Lalit Modi and N. Srinivasan cannot shock or surprise me, but I have been distressed at the way in which some respected cricket commentators have become apologists for the IPL and its management. Theirs is a betrayal that has wounded the image of cricket in India, and beyond. George Orwell once said: 'A writer should never be a loyal member of a political party'. Likewise, for his credibility and even his sanity, a cricket writer/commentator should keep a safe distance from those who run the game in his country.
What is to be done now? The vested interests are asking for such token measures as the legalization of betting and the resignation of the odd official. In truth, far more radical steps are called for. The IPL should be disbanded. The Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy, played between state sides, should be upgraded, making it the flagship 20-20 tournament in the country. Then the clubs and state associations that have run our domestic game reasonably well for the past 80 years would be given back their authority, and the crooks and the moneybags turfed out altogether. Even now, in every city and town in India, there are selfless cricket coaches and administrators actively nurturing young talent, supervising matches and leagues. The way to save Indian cricket is to allow these modern-day equivalents of N. Duraiswami and M. Chinnaswamy to take charge once more.
rcguha telegraph
Sunday, 12 May 2013
The curious case of Pawan Bansal's private secretary
While it is becoming increasingly apparent that the fortunes of sacked
Railway Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal [ Images ]'s family members
improved dramatically during his tenure in the government, officials
on his personal staff were not doing too badly either.
Take the case of Bansal's private secretary Rahul Bhandrai, a 1997
batch Punjab [ Images ] cadre Indian Administrative Services officer,
who is also being questioned by the Central Bureau of Investigation in
connection with the bribery scandal involving the former rail minister
and his nephew Vijay Singla.
Maybe not on the same scale as Bansal's sons and nephews, but
Bhandari's personal assets showed a distinct rise in the years that he
worked with the former minister.
The affidavit filed by Bhandari and his wife, Rakhi Gupta, also an IAS
officer, with the Department of Personnel and Training, shows that his
personal assets rose five times in the past three years.
What is revealing is that Bhandari purchased a plot of land through
Ajay Garg, an accused in the bribes-for-jobs scandal which has rocked
the railway ministry. Garg, who has close links with Vijay Singla, is
presently in CBI custody and is being questioned by the premier
investigating agency.
According to the details submitted to the DOPT, Bhandari had assets
worth Rs. 28 lakhs in 2010 which rose to Rs. 1.32 crore within the
next two years. Bhandari informed the government that he bought
agricultural land in the Bhatinda area in Punjab from Garg in 2011 for
Rs.9.97 lakhs. The value of this property rose to Rs. 30 lakhs within
a year. He also said he had informed the government about this deal.
Bhandari also purchased an apartment in sector 4 Noida in 2012 for Rs.
97.5 lakhs. According to the IAS officer, this property was bought
jointly with his wife for which they took a loan.
The officer also has a 500 sq yards plot in the Greater Punjab
Officers' Housing Building Society, Mohali, for which he made a
payment of Rs. 32.50 lakhs. He is also the owner of a 355 sq. yard
plot in Ludhiana, which has been valued at Rs. 8 lakhs, purchased from
Anita Singla. In addition, Bhandari is paying a monthly instalment of
Rs. 20,000 for another property.
Bhandari's personal assets might compare poorly with those of Bansal's
sons and nephews, but the recent improvement in his personal wealth
points to a nexus between the former minister's staff members and
Vijay Singla and his business associates who were allegedly to have
promised lucrative assignments to senior railway officials for a hefty
fee.
Singla was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 90 lakhs
at the behest of suspended Railway Board member Mahesh Kumar with the
promise of a better assignment.
What is even more damning are reports that Singla and Bhandari were
old friends and that Bansal's nephew was responsible for getting him
installed as the minister's personal secretary.
They apparently became acquainted way back in 2000 when Bhandari was
posted as the sub-divisional magistrate of Barnala. Singla visited the
place often as his close relatives are based there. The friendship
lasted through Bhandari's various transfers across Punjab.
It was because of Singla's political connections that Bhandari got
several important assignments, including the post of deputy
commissioner of Bathinda in 2005. Subsequently, Singla introduced
Bhandari to Bansal and it was at his behest that the Punjab cadre
officer was appointed private secretary to the minister.
These revelations have brought the scandal to Bansal's doorstep which
is why he had no option but to put in his papers. In fact, there is
every possibility that Bansal may be called in for questioning by the
CBI as its investigations have revealed that Singla and his associate
Sandeep Goyal were alleged to have offered eight plum posts for a
price to various contenders in different departments of the rail
ministry.
Bansal will be asked about his financial links with Singla and the
suspended official Mahesh Kumar who was appointed Raiway Board member
(staff) days before this scandal erupted.
Interceptions of telephone calls between Singla and others have shown
that many such calls were made from Bansal's official Ashoka Road
residence.
Suspicion has also arisen about Bansal's meeting with Mahesh Kumar on
April 17 on the sidelines of a function in Mumbai [ Images ] a
fortnight before Kumar took charge as Raiway Board member (staff).
Apparently, Mahesh Kumar has told the CBI investigators that Bansal
and his private secretary Rahul Bhandari were key players in this deal
in which he was promised that he would soon be moved as member
(electrical) in the Railway Board for which he paid Singla an initial
amount of Rs. 90 lakhs.
Mahesh Kumar is said to have met Singla at Bansal's Ashoka Road
residence in this connection.
rediff
Railway Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal [ Images ]'s family members
improved dramatically during his tenure in the government, officials
on his personal staff were not doing too badly either.
Take the case of Bansal's private secretary Rahul Bhandrai, a 1997
batch Punjab [ Images ] cadre Indian Administrative Services officer,
who is also being questioned by the Central Bureau of Investigation in
connection with the bribery scandal involving the former rail minister
and his nephew Vijay Singla.
Maybe not on the same scale as Bansal's sons and nephews, but
Bhandari's personal assets showed a distinct rise in the years that he
worked with the former minister.
The affidavit filed by Bhandari and his wife, Rakhi Gupta, also an IAS
officer, with the Department of Personnel and Training, shows that his
personal assets rose five times in the past three years.
What is revealing is that Bhandari purchased a plot of land through
Ajay Garg, an accused in the bribes-for-jobs scandal which has rocked
the railway ministry. Garg, who has close links with Vijay Singla, is
presently in CBI custody and is being questioned by the premier
investigating agency.
According to the details submitted to the DOPT, Bhandari had assets
worth Rs. 28 lakhs in 2010 which rose to Rs. 1.32 crore within the
next two years. Bhandari informed the government that he bought
agricultural land in the Bhatinda area in Punjab from Garg in 2011 for
Rs.9.97 lakhs. The value of this property rose to Rs. 30 lakhs within
a year. He also said he had informed the government about this deal.
Bhandari also purchased an apartment in sector 4 Noida in 2012 for Rs.
97.5 lakhs. According to the IAS officer, this property was bought
jointly with his wife for which they took a loan.
The officer also has a 500 sq yards plot in the Greater Punjab
Officers' Housing Building Society, Mohali, for which he made a
payment of Rs. 32.50 lakhs. He is also the owner of a 355 sq. yard
plot in Ludhiana, which has been valued at Rs. 8 lakhs, purchased from
Anita Singla. In addition, Bhandari is paying a monthly instalment of
Rs. 20,000 for another property.
Bhandari's personal assets might compare poorly with those of Bansal's
sons and nephews, but the recent improvement in his personal wealth
points to a nexus between the former minister's staff members and
Vijay Singla and his business associates who were allegedly to have
promised lucrative assignments to senior railway officials for a hefty
fee.
Singla was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 90 lakhs
at the behest of suspended Railway Board member Mahesh Kumar with the
promise of a better assignment.
What is even more damning are reports that Singla and Bhandari were
old friends and that Bansal's nephew was responsible for getting him
installed as the minister's personal secretary.
They apparently became acquainted way back in 2000 when Bhandari was
posted as the sub-divisional magistrate of Barnala. Singla visited the
place often as his close relatives are based there. The friendship
lasted through Bhandari's various transfers across Punjab.
It was because of Singla's political connections that Bhandari got
several important assignments, including the post of deputy
commissioner of Bathinda in 2005. Subsequently, Singla introduced
Bhandari to Bansal and it was at his behest that the Punjab cadre
officer was appointed private secretary to the minister.
These revelations have brought the scandal to Bansal's doorstep which
is why he had no option but to put in his papers. In fact, there is
every possibility that Bansal may be called in for questioning by the
CBI as its investigations have revealed that Singla and his associate
Sandeep Goyal were alleged to have offered eight plum posts for a
price to various contenders in different departments of the rail
ministry.
Bansal will be asked about his financial links with Singla and the
suspended official Mahesh Kumar who was appointed Raiway Board member
(staff) days before this scandal erupted.
Interceptions of telephone calls between Singla and others have shown
that many such calls were made from Bansal's official Ashoka Road
residence.
Suspicion has also arisen about Bansal's meeting with Mahesh Kumar on
April 17 on the sidelines of a function in Mumbai [ Images ] a
fortnight before Kumar took charge as Raiway Board member (staff).
Apparently, Mahesh Kumar has told the CBI investigators that Bansal
and his private secretary Rahul Bhandari were key players in this deal
in which he was promised that he would soon be moved as member
(electrical) in the Railway Board for which he paid Singla an initial
amount of Rs. 90 lakhs.
Mahesh Kumar is said to have met Singla at Bansal's Ashoka Road
residence in this connection.
rediff
The PMO, the coal scam, the missing sentence and the CBI
Did the principal secretary to the prime minister authorise the
controversial meeting a joint secretary at the PMO had at the CBI
headquarters to discuss the coal scam report, asks T V R Shenoy.
'The heart of the report was changed on the suggestion of government
officials,' the Supreme Court observed on May 8, 2013, referring to
the CBI report on the Coal Allotment Scam.
Three questions arise.
Who was the surgeon? In which hospital was the heart transplanted? And
when was the operation carried out?
Conventional wisdom points a finger at then law minister Ashwani
Kumar. But reading the nine-page affidavit filed by CBI Director
Ranjit Sinha on May 6 and the observations of the apex court raises
intriguing questions.
On March 6 Ashwani Kumar met the CBI director, the attorney general,
then additional solicitor general Harin P Raval, and two joint
secretaries. These last two have been identified as Shatrughna Singh
(from the Prime Minister's Office) and A K Bhalla (from the coal
ministry).
The first question was about the identity of the surgeon. The CBI
director's affidavit offers four possibilites.
First, the 'heart transplant' was carried out by Ashwani Kumar.
Second, the surgery was performed by a law officer, either then
additional solicitor general Harin Raval or Attorney General G E
Vahanvati.
Third, the changes were carried out by the CBI at its own initiative.
Fourth, do not forget that PE 2 (Preliminary Enquiry 2), which the
Supreme Court described as 'the heart of the status report', was also
shown to Shatrughna Singh and A K Bhalla.
The classic trilogy of criminal investigations runs 'means, motive,
and opportunity'. Any of the four parties mentioned above possessed
both the means and the opportunity. I shall not speculate today as to
the motive.
Page Three of Ranjit Sinha's nine-page affidavit says, 'Accordingly
draft reports were taken to the office of the Hon'ble Minister for Law
& Justice. A copy of the draft report pertaining to PE 219 2012 E 0002
(allocations made during 2006 to 2009), herein referred to as PE 2,
was perused by him and he also made certain changes in the same...'
This seems clear enough, does it not? Ashwani Kumar changed the heart.
But there is more.
The CBI director's affidavit says there were three meetings between
the CBI officers and others on that eventful sixth of March.
That afternoon O P Galhotra, joint director of the CBI, and Ravikant,
deputy inspector general, met the attorney general at his residence.
The CBI director's affidavit clarifies, 'I was not present at the said
meeting,' where the attorney general 'suggested certain minor changes
in the Status Report of PE 2.'
Interestingly, he also says that Vahanvati 'neither asked for nor was
given a copy of the final Status Reports.'
Why did the CBI director specify that Vahanvati was not given a copy
of the report?
Is this an implied suggestion that someone else was given a copy?
We now come to the third meeting. 'Later in the evening the same day,
a meeting was held with Shri Shatrughna Singh, Joint Secretary in PMO,
and Shri A K Bhalla, Joint Secretary in Ministry of Coal, in the
chamber of Shri O P Galhotra, Joint Director CBI at the request of
Shri Shatrughna Singh.'
The affidavit continues, 'Both these officials went through the draft
Status Reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4. Next day, on 7th March,
2013, they suggested amendments in a paragraph (later numbered as
1.21) of PE 2 and a paragraph (later numbered as 2.8 of PE 4).'
Page Eight of the affidavit carries this significant line: 'From
Paragraph 1.21 of PE 2, the tentative finding about non-existence of a
system regarding allocation of specific weightage/points was deleted
at the instance of the officials of PMO and Ministry of Coal.'
What is the importance of this sentence?
The heart of the Coal Allotment Scam is that allocations were made
arbitrarily. It is this conclusion -- about 'the non-existence of a
system' -- that the two joint secretaries asked the CBI to delete.
Ashwani Kumar and Vahanvati grabbed the headlines. But the Supreme
Court latched on to the true curiosities, the presence of the two
joint secretaries and to the fact that they suggested changes the next
day.
Their Lordships observed, 'On March sixth two Joint Secretaries visit
the CBI office and they are shown the draft Status Report. They go
back, and come back on March seventh and suggest changes. Mr
Parasaran, this is something very serious.'
Mohan Parasaran, the solicitor general, second in the hierarchy of law
officers, was appearing thanks to the squabbles between Attorney
General Vahanvati and former additional solicitor general Harin Raval.
To drive home the point their Lordships demanded, 'What business did
these two officers have to come to the CBI? As if the CBI welcomes
everyone!'
It is an excellent question. The Government of India [ Images ]
operates under certain rules. One regulation is that an officer in one
department cannot meet an officer in another wing at whim. It has to
be authorised by a minister, such as V Narayanasamy, the minister of
state in the PMO, or by a secretary, such as Pulok Chatterji,
principal secretary to the prime minister.
Did Pulok Chatterji authorise Shatrughna Singh's participation in the
many conferences of March 6, 2013? Particularly, the meeting made at
his joint secretary's own request, with O P Galhotra, at the CBI
headquarters?
If these were unapproved, did Pulok Chatterji demand an explanation
from Shatrughna Singh? Or Union Coal Secretary S K Srivastava from A K
Bhalla?
Remember that the CBI director's affidavit says Vahanvati was not
given a copy of the Status Report and that the two joint secretaries,
who had seen the draft on the evening of March sixth, came back the
next day with a request for specific change.
This raises two possibilites. First, the two joint secretaries enjoy
photographic memories.
Second, at least one of them took a copy of the report out of the CBI
headquarters that evening, studied it overnight, and came back with
suggested changes the next morning.
If a copy was taken out, did Shatrughna Singh or A K Bhalla show the
CBI report to anyone else, in the PMO, in the coal ministry, or
anywhere else?
Consider again the implications of what the Supreme Court observed:
'They go back, and come back on March seventh and suggest changes. Mr
Parasaran, this is something very serious.'
Shatrughna Singh, according to my sources, is a truthful man. What
will he say if the Supreme Court tells him to file an affidavit
explaining his actions?
Congressmen offer several explanations to justify the CBI meeting the
law minister and the law officers. There is no excuse at all for
Shatrughna Sinha and A K Bhalla talking to CBI officers.
Let me sum the facts.
First, the Coal Allotment Scam took place at a time when Dr Manmohan
Singh [ Images ] was also the coal minister.
Second, joint secretaries from the PMO and the coal ministry met CBI
officers investigating the scandal. To which the Supreme Court asked,
'How could the report be perused by someone whose action was under the
scanner?'
Third, Shatrughna Singh, A K Bhalla, or both 'suggested' that the CBI
delete the line about the 'non-existence of a system', which goes to
the heart of the Coalgate Scandal.
Fourth, Pulok Chatterji, Shatrughna Singh's boss, has not demanded an
explanation of what he did, which suggests that he acted under orders.
I leave with you a question and a quotation.
The question is: Shall the buck stop at Pulok Chatterji's desk?
The quotation is from the Watergate scandal: 'The cover-up was worse
than the crime.'
rediff
controversial meeting a joint secretary at the PMO had at the CBI
headquarters to discuss the coal scam report, asks T V R Shenoy.
'The heart of the report was changed on the suggestion of government
officials,' the Supreme Court observed on May 8, 2013, referring to
the CBI report on the Coal Allotment Scam.
Three questions arise.
Who was the surgeon? In which hospital was the heart transplanted? And
when was the operation carried out?
Conventional wisdom points a finger at then law minister Ashwani
Kumar. But reading the nine-page affidavit filed by CBI Director
Ranjit Sinha on May 6 and the observations of the apex court raises
intriguing questions.
On March 6 Ashwani Kumar met the CBI director, the attorney general,
then additional solicitor general Harin P Raval, and two joint
secretaries. These last two have been identified as Shatrughna Singh
(from the Prime Minister's Office) and A K Bhalla (from the coal
ministry).
The first question was about the identity of the surgeon. The CBI
director's affidavit offers four possibilites.
First, the 'heart transplant' was carried out by Ashwani Kumar.
Second, the surgery was performed by a law officer, either then
additional solicitor general Harin Raval or Attorney General G E
Vahanvati.
Third, the changes were carried out by the CBI at its own initiative.
Fourth, do not forget that PE 2 (Preliminary Enquiry 2), which the
Supreme Court described as 'the heart of the status report', was also
shown to Shatrughna Singh and A K Bhalla.
The classic trilogy of criminal investigations runs 'means, motive,
and opportunity'. Any of the four parties mentioned above possessed
both the means and the opportunity. I shall not speculate today as to
the motive.
Page Three of Ranjit Sinha's nine-page affidavit says, 'Accordingly
draft reports were taken to the office of the Hon'ble Minister for Law
& Justice. A copy of the draft report pertaining to PE 219 2012 E 0002
(allocations made during 2006 to 2009), herein referred to as PE 2,
was perused by him and he also made certain changes in the same...'
This seems clear enough, does it not? Ashwani Kumar changed the heart.
But there is more.
The CBI director's affidavit says there were three meetings between
the CBI officers and others on that eventful sixth of March.
That afternoon O P Galhotra, joint director of the CBI, and Ravikant,
deputy inspector general, met the attorney general at his residence.
The CBI director's affidavit clarifies, 'I was not present at the said
meeting,' where the attorney general 'suggested certain minor changes
in the Status Report of PE 2.'
Interestingly, he also says that Vahanvati 'neither asked for nor was
given a copy of the final Status Reports.'
Why did the CBI director specify that Vahanvati was not given a copy
of the report?
Is this an implied suggestion that someone else was given a copy?
We now come to the third meeting. 'Later in the evening the same day,
a meeting was held with Shri Shatrughna Singh, Joint Secretary in PMO,
and Shri A K Bhalla, Joint Secretary in Ministry of Coal, in the
chamber of Shri O P Galhotra, Joint Director CBI at the request of
Shri Shatrughna Singh.'
The affidavit continues, 'Both these officials went through the draft
Status Reports pertaining to PE 2 and PE 4. Next day, on 7th March,
2013, they suggested amendments in a paragraph (later numbered as
1.21) of PE 2 and a paragraph (later numbered as 2.8 of PE 4).'
Page Eight of the affidavit carries this significant line: 'From
Paragraph 1.21 of PE 2, the tentative finding about non-existence of a
system regarding allocation of specific weightage/points was deleted
at the instance of the officials of PMO and Ministry of Coal.'
What is the importance of this sentence?
The heart of the Coal Allotment Scam is that allocations were made
arbitrarily. It is this conclusion -- about 'the non-existence of a
system' -- that the two joint secretaries asked the CBI to delete.
Ashwani Kumar and Vahanvati grabbed the headlines. But the Supreme
Court latched on to the true curiosities, the presence of the two
joint secretaries and to the fact that they suggested changes the next
day.
Their Lordships observed, 'On March sixth two Joint Secretaries visit
the CBI office and they are shown the draft Status Report. They go
back, and come back on March seventh and suggest changes. Mr
Parasaran, this is something very serious.'
Mohan Parasaran, the solicitor general, second in the hierarchy of law
officers, was appearing thanks to the squabbles between Attorney
General Vahanvati and former additional solicitor general Harin Raval.
To drive home the point their Lordships demanded, 'What business did
these two officers have to come to the CBI? As if the CBI welcomes
everyone!'
It is an excellent question. The Government of India [ Images ]
operates under certain rules. One regulation is that an officer in one
department cannot meet an officer in another wing at whim. It has to
be authorised by a minister, such as V Narayanasamy, the minister of
state in the PMO, or by a secretary, such as Pulok Chatterji,
principal secretary to the prime minister.
Did Pulok Chatterji authorise Shatrughna Singh's participation in the
many conferences of March 6, 2013? Particularly, the meeting made at
his joint secretary's own request, with O P Galhotra, at the CBI
headquarters?
If these were unapproved, did Pulok Chatterji demand an explanation
from Shatrughna Singh? Or Union Coal Secretary S K Srivastava from A K
Bhalla?
Remember that the CBI director's affidavit says Vahanvati was not
given a copy of the Status Report and that the two joint secretaries,
who had seen the draft on the evening of March sixth, came back the
next day with a request for specific change.
This raises two possibilites. First, the two joint secretaries enjoy
photographic memories.
Second, at least one of them took a copy of the report out of the CBI
headquarters that evening, studied it overnight, and came back with
suggested changes the next morning.
If a copy was taken out, did Shatrughna Singh or A K Bhalla show the
CBI report to anyone else, in the PMO, in the coal ministry, or
anywhere else?
Consider again the implications of what the Supreme Court observed:
'They go back, and come back on March seventh and suggest changes. Mr
Parasaran, this is something very serious.'
Shatrughna Singh, according to my sources, is a truthful man. What
will he say if the Supreme Court tells him to file an affidavit
explaining his actions?
Congressmen offer several explanations to justify the CBI meeting the
law minister and the law officers. There is no excuse at all for
Shatrughna Sinha and A K Bhalla talking to CBI officers.
Let me sum the facts.
First, the Coal Allotment Scam took place at a time when Dr Manmohan
Singh [ Images ] was also the coal minister.
Second, joint secretaries from the PMO and the coal ministry met CBI
officers investigating the scandal. To which the Supreme Court asked,
'How could the report be perused by someone whose action was under the
scanner?'
Third, Shatrughna Singh, A K Bhalla, or both 'suggested' that the CBI
delete the line about the 'non-existence of a system', which goes to
the heart of the Coalgate Scandal.
Fourth, Pulok Chatterji, Shatrughna Singh's boss, has not demanded an
explanation of what he did, which suggests that he acted under orders.
I leave with you a question and a quotation.
The question is: Shall the buck stop at Pulok Chatterji's desk?
The quotation is from the Watergate scandal: 'The cover-up was worse
than the crime.'
rediff
Friday, 10 May 2013
Paid news pandemic undermines democracy
Top civil society bodies are challenging the government's
'counter-affidavit' in the Paid News case which seeks to gut the
Election Commission's powers
In a major twist to the Ashok Chavan vs. Madhav Kinhalkar legal battle
(more notorious as the "Paid News" scandal), leading civil society
organisations and eminent individuals have approached the Supreme
Court to implead themselves into the case.
Their intervention application, moved by advocate Prashant Bhushan,
minces no words on their reasons for doing so. They are disturbed by
"the stranglehold of money power on our electoral politics." And by a
recent move of the Union Law Ministry which could destroy the Election
Commission of India's power to disqualify candidates filing incorrect
or false accounts.
The applicants for intervention hope to defeat "the nefarious design"
of the Union government which seeks to "undo all the good work done by
the Election Commission of India." And which further seeks, to
"unsettle the law already settled" by the Supreme Court of India. They
wish to ensure that the ECI "retains the plenitude of its power and
authority to safeguard the purity and integrity of the electoral
process." Which includes holding candidates to account on poll
expenses.
This action follows the Union Law Ministry filing a counter-affidavit
on behalf of the Government in the Ashok Chavan case. That affidavit,
first reported by The Hindu on March 20, asserts that "the power of
the Election Commission to disqualify a person arises only in the
event of failure to lodge an account of expenses and not for any other
reason, including the correctness or otherwise of such accounts."
Simply put: the government claims the ECI has no right to disqualify a
candidate even if his accounts are found to be improper or fraudulent.
If accepted, this would virtually gut the powers of that
Constitutional body. (However, the Court is yet to give any ruling on
the matter.)
Those seeking to intervene include Common Cause, a public interest
body. Its legal activism on electoral matters had a role in the
Supreme Court's ordering that political parties had to file regular
returns of income or invite possible penal action. Also in the line-up
is the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a group at the
forefront of many battles for electoral and political reforms. Vital
among those, a public interest litigation (PIL) of ADR in 1999, which
later saw the Supreme Court order candidates to disclose their
criminal, financial and educational background prior to the polls.
That is, by filing an affidavit with the ECI. Common Cause and ADR are
joined by five other civil society bodies in this application.
The line-up of distinguished individuals includes veteran journalist
and editor B.G. Verghese, former Chief Election Commissioners of India
(CEC) N. Gopalaswami and J.M. Lyngdoh, and former adviser to the ECI,
K.J. Rao.
The immediate beneficiary of the UPA government's attack on the ECI's
powers is the disgraced ex-chief Minister of Maharashtra, Ashok
Chavan. As former Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami has
pointed out: "The government has joined Mr. Chavan in challenging the
Election Commission's power to disqualify a candidate under Section
10A of the Act for his failure to submit a correct and true rendering
of his election expenditure" (The Hindu, April 17, 2013). The former
CEC clearly sums up the impulse for civil society action: "The case
before the Supreme Court is no longer one of Dr. Kinhalkar and others
vs Ashok Chavan. It concerns every individual and institution that is
uneasy about and opposed to the sway of money power in elections." —
See "Doublespeak on electoral reforms, April 17, 2013, The Hindu,
thne.ws/gopalaswami
Mr. Chavan not only lost his post in the fallout of the Adarsh scam,
but also earned notoriety in the "Paid News scandal," a story broken
by The Hindu (See: "Is the 'Era of Ashok' a new era for 'news'",
thne.ws/era-of-ashok, November 29, 2009).
Destructive
The applicants for intervention in the case note there is "a growing
concern that the pandemic of Paid News is eating into the vitals of
our democratic polity by compromising the purity of the elections and
destroying the credibility of the print/electronic media." They cite
the case of Umlesh Yadav, MLA from Uttar Pradesh, who was disqualified
by the ECI for three years. Ms Yadav had failed "to account for an
expenditure of Rs. 21,250 on an advertisement that had appeared in the
disguise of a news item in the Dainik Jagran," of April 17, 2007.
They note that "Umlesh Yadav pales into insignificance in comparison
to the media blitzkrieg" launched in support of Ashok Chavan's 2009
Assembly election campaign. And that the Government of India which had
ostensibly taken a strong public position on Paid News and praised the
ECI's efforts to curb it, "has filed a counter affidavit which reveals
its true colours."
The Election Commission is also likely to file an affidavit opposing
the government's pro-Chavan counter-affidavit.
thehindu
'counter-affidavit' in the Paid News case which seeks to gut the
Election Commission's powers
In a major twist to the Ashok Chavan vs. Madhav Kinhalkar legal battle
(more notorious as the "Paid News" scandal), leading civil society
organisations and eminent individuals have approached the Supreme
Court to implead themselves into the case.
Their intervention application, moved by advocate Prashant Bhushan,
minces no words on their reasons for doing so. They are disturbed by
"the stranglehold of money power on our electoral politics." And by a
recent move of the Union Law Ministry which could destroy the Election
Commission of India's power to disqualify candidates filing incorrect
or false accounts.
The applicants for intervention hope to defeat "the nefarious design"
of the Union government which seeks to "undo all the good work done by
the Election Commission of India." And which further seeks, to
"unsettle the law already settled" by the Supreme Court of India. They
wish to ensure that the ECI "retains the plenitude of its power and
authority to safeguard the purity and integrity of the electoral
process." Which includes holding candidates to account on poll
expenses.
This action follows the Union Law Ministry filing a counter-affidavit
on behalf of the Government in the Ashok Chavan case. That affidavit,
first reported by The Hindu on March 20, asserts that "the power of
the Election Commission to disqualify a person arises only in the
event of failure to lodge an account of expenses and not for any other
reason, including the correctness or otherwise of such accounts."
Simply put: the government claims the ECI has no right to disqualify a
candidate even if his accounts are found to be improper or fraudulent.
If accepted, this would virtually gut the powers of that
Constitutional body. (However, the Court is yet to give any ruling on
the matter.)
Those seeking to intervene include Common Cause, a public interest
body. Its legal activism on electoral matters had a role in the
Supreme Court's ordering that political parties had to file regular
returns of income or invite possible penal action. Also in the line-up
is the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a group at the
forefront of many battles for electoral and political reforms. Vital
among those, a public interest litigation (PIL) of ADR in 1999, which
later saw the Supreme Court order candidates to disclose their
criminal, financial and educational background prior to the polls.
That is, by filing an affidavit with the ECI. Common Cause and ADR are
joined by five other civil society bodies in this application.
The line-up of distinguished individuals includes veteran journalist
and editor B.G. Verghese, former Chief Election Commissioners of India
(CEC) N. Gopalaswami and J.M. Lyngdoh, and former adviser to the ECI,
K.J. Rao.
The immediate beneficiary of the UPA government's attack on the ECI's
powers is the disgraced ex-chief Minister of Maharashtra, Ashok
Chavan. As former Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami has
pointed out: "The government has joined Mr. Chavan in challenging the
Election Commission's power to disqualify a candidate under Section
10A of the Act for his failure to submit a correct and true rendering
of his election expenditure" (The Hindu, April 17, 2013). The former
CEC clearly sums up the impulse for civil society action: "The case
before the Supreme Court is no longer one of Dr. Kinhalkar and others
vs Ashok Chavan. It concerns every individual and institution that is
uneasy about and opposed to the sway of money power in elections." —
See "Doublespeak on electoral reforms, April 17, 2013, The Hindu,
thne.ws/gopalaswami
Mr. Chavan not only lost his post in the fallout of the Adarsh scam,
but also earned notoriety in the "Paid News scandal," a story broken
by The Hindu (See: "Is the 'Era of Ashok' a new era for 'news'",
thne.ws/era-of-ashok, November 29, 2009).
Destructive
The applicants for intervention in the case note there is "a growing
concern that the pandemic of Paid News is eating into the vitals of
our democratic polity by compromising the purity of the elections and
destroying the credibility of the print/electronic media." They cite
the case of Umlesh Yadav, MLA from Uttar Pradesh, who was disqualified
by the ECI for three years. Ms Yadav had failed "to account for an
expenditure of Rs. 21,250 on an advertisement that had appeared in the
disguise of a news item in the Dainik Jagran," of April 17, 2007.
They note that "Umlesh Yadav pales into insignificance in comparison
to the media blitzkrieg" launched in support of Ashok Chavan's 2009
Assembly election campaign. And that the Government of India which had
ostensibly taken a strong public position on Paid News and praised the
ECI's efforts to curb it, "has filed a counter affidavit which reveals
its true colours."
The Election Commission is also likely to file an affidavit opposing
the government's pro-Chavan counter-affidavit.
thehindu
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Drunken driving killed over 10000 across India in 2011
As many as 10,553 people were killed in road accidents due to drunken driving in 2011, parliament was told on Tuesday. Minister of State for Road Transport and Highways Sarvey Sathyanarayana told the Lok Sabha in a written reply that road accidents occur due to the complex interaction of a number of factors which also include intake of alcohol and drugs.
"Intake of alcohol/drugs by drivers resulted in 24,655 road accident and 10,553 fatalities in 2011," he said.
The highest number of drunken driving accidents were reported from Uttar Pradesh followed by Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. He said the ministry has requested all the states to remove existing liquor shops along national highways and not to issue fresh licences to liquor vendors for operating shops there.
ibnlive
SHOCKING: How teachers are selected in India!
Faculty crunch is a known phenomenon in India and with the opening of hundreds of academic institutions in both public and private domain, the shortage of good people in teaching, awaits a much harsher reality.
However, in many institutions, the dearth of new faculty is an outcome of a non-serious and dismissive attitude of the selection committee itself.
Figure this out -- a Central University announced faculty recruitments a year and a half back before shortlisting the candidates for interviews.
Before the interview
A rigorous exercise is carried out for candidate's certificate verification where on an average 15 to 30 minutes are spent on each prospective faculty.
There is no systematic procedure for the candidates to appear before the selection committee, so some are seen waiting for as long as six to eight hours, awaiting their name-call.
Snacks and drinks come, but before you could stretch your arms towards it, they are whisked away -- "These are for selection committee members, if they are happy, you will be happy too", says a young recruitment facilitator.
I recall, what Steve Jobs said, though in a different context, "Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish".
Yet another round of verification is carried out.
"You should keep your most important publication(s) at the top," advises the verifier.
But when I tell him there is an error in the allotted marks (an addition that contributes to the overall merit list), as the university hasn't accounted my PhD, he assures it will be corrected without taking a note of it (I salute his memory power).
As, I enter the room, the panel chair introduces me to the rest of the members. The panel consists of distinguished people, some of who, I see are busy twiddling with their mobile phones.
The first question comes up -- So, which courses would you teach? And which modules would you introduce if we introduce a new course?
As I attempt an honest answer, listing out the course modules, I get interrupted -- No, Mr Candidate, your understanding is pathetic, you have not listed X institution that offers this course!.
Trying my wisdom to link the remark to a 'stressed interview' category, I make yet another attempt.
"Sorry Sir, I am not aware that 'X' institution offers this course... but I am interrupted again.
"If you do not know, I have no questions to ask", says the professor, symbolically passing on the 'query' relay flag to his left.
After two sitter questions in my domain, that I answer comfortably, comes a strange query: "You have published in international journals, how did you manage to do so?"
Thankfully one of the members came to my defence clarifying that these were 'peer reviewed' and 'refereed' journals.
Meanwhile, the chairman walked out and another member got up to attend a call and never came back. I asked if I could make a five-minute presentation, but I was told -- "No one has made a presentation, why would you?"
That was the end of my 13-minute interview.
I was feeling miserable but when I interacted with my fellow candidates, I realised, I wasn't unique.
Most of us had common grievances -- the attitude of most of the selection committee members was not to engage with the subject knowledge, not to listen patiently, and not to give 'reasonable time'.
To put it simply, the attitude was dismissive. I tried collating the remarks of the selection committee members through others.
Many of them were direct, disgraceful and discouraging.
Though the result of this particular interview is not yet out, I presume, people across the country would be able to associate with what happens in many of the institutes.
Top remarks made on candidates
- Your knowledge is very poor
- You are unfit in any profession
- You are wasting our time
- How did you manage to publish in journals of repute?
- Go back to where you have come from
Other universities not far off
In many private universities, including those in the deemed category, the faculty members are often considered as 'client support officials'.
If you have good network capabilities, are able to generate resources through personal contacts, and influential enough to rope in new students, you are directly shortlisted. Academic credentials can take a walk.
The process is so designed that specific days are allotted for such candidates and most of the selection committee members are briefed in advance.
On condition of anonymity, a professor at a private university said, "Merit comes next to Remit while selecting faculty members. If you have the potential to remit tangible resources for the institute, you could be in the next day".
rediff
Countries that wish to invade do not do so by pitching tents!
What is so honourable in defending or dis-honourable in not defending
the 'Johnson line' in Aksai Chin? That is a question that needs to be
asked to the Indian shouting brigade. The Chinese also need to be
asked as to why they wish to implement the 'MacDonald McCartney' line
drawn by British Imperialists? asks Col (retd) Anil Athale.
The recent face of between India [ Images ] and China in the Aksai
Chin area makes one feel a strong sense of déjà vu! It is only last
year that the country observed the 50th anniversary of that
unfortunate conflict and much ink was spilled by the Indian media to
assert how '1962' will not be repeated!
Yet what is one to make out of a leading national English daily giving
screaming headline, 'Chinese pitch 5th Tent in disputed area!' The
jingoism, uninformed comments, criticism of government, cries of
'surrender to the Chinese'. If a Rip Van Vinkle would have woken up
after 50 years he would find it all very familiar.
Naville Maxwell's otherwise biased account (India's China War) has one
very pertinent observation, 'Indian government was goaded into
foolhardy action by an un-informed media and public opinion to embark
on a disastrous course of action'.
Let us at least after 50 years be rational and stop being emotional
where Aksai Chin is concerned. Aksai Chin was essentially a 'No Man's
Land' between Ladakh and Tibet [ Images ]. A god forsaken cold desert
where 'not a blade of grass grows' as famously remarked by Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru [ Images ]! Aksai Chin became part of British India
in a typical 'imperial' map making exercise that wanted a land wedge
between the eastward expanding Russia [ Images ] and Tibet.
The threat never materialised and Aksai Chin remained a line on map.
Neither we nor the Chinese showed any interest in this area till the
late 1950s when they constructed a road between the two restive
provinces of Xingang and Tibet. It was militarily important for them.
They did this unilaterally without even informing India. Instead of
acknowledging the Chinese interest and accepting that India had none
and the dubious nature of the status of Aksai Chin area, we went in
for a 'maximalist' solution, claimed whole of Aksai Chin as ours and
despite known military weakness embarked on a 'flag showing'
aggressive creation of small posts to bolster our claim -- as if this
was some legal domestic land dispute where possession is 9/10 of law!
Even 51 years after the dispute we seemed stuck in justifying our
claims based on legacy of British imperialism! If Aksai Chin had some
strategic importance for us then one would understand the use of
history in terms of real politick, but our response to the Chinese
provocation seems wholly emotional and out of proportion to the
Chinese actions.
Countries that wish to invade territory do not do so by pitching tents!
This does not mean that the Chinese actions are merely 'tactical' as
PM has said. The decision to establish tents and structures in
'disputed' areas must have been taken at higher level. If the post
established is threatening our access to the areas to the north, then
we must take appropriate action. But this is a plea to let the armed
forces and government do the needful and there is no need for the
'emotional' response.
We must, while safeguarding our interests of defence of Ladakh, also
acknowledge that Aksai Chin is indeed a disputed territory. Our claim
to this area and Chinese counter claim stands on an entirely different
footing than say Arunachal Pradesh. Chinese claim on whole of
Arunachal Pradesh is spurious and goes against their own 'principles'
where they have accepted the MacMohan line and watershed principle to
demarcate border with Myanmar.
If one could venture to suggest a solution to Aksai Chin dispute, the
Russia-China agreement on Amur-Usuri border offers a good model. But
both sides must look at the dispute through a prism of 'realism' and
discard the baggage of history.
But the current stand off, certainly initiated by the Chinese, is
curious in terms of timing. China is at this very moment engaged in a
far more serious face off with Japan [ Images ] over the
Diaoyu/Senkaku islands. The Chinese premier is scheduled to visit
India soon. There is scheduled Indo-US meet in May to discuss China
specifically.
Is this a 'signal' to India to stay away from the US-Japan axis? Or is
it a typical media manipulation by the west to thwart and Sino-Indian
rapprochement? It is difficult to comment with the fog of
disinformation so thick.
A word of caution to the main opposition party in India, it must not
play into the hands of media manipulators and make this a 'domestic'
political issue. All Indians must stand behind the government/armed
forces for whatever action they deem fit. It is time the main
opposition behaved in a mature manner and not like the leader of
opposition did during the 1999 Kargil [ Images ] conflict with
Pakistan.
There is a possibility that the Chinese have decided to activate the
Sino-Indian border in view of the developing situation in Afghanistan
post the US withdrawal in 2014. This may be one of the ways that China
wants to help its 'all weather' friend Pakistan.
Incidentally, the Chinese help to Pakistan in increasing its nuclear
arsenal is far greater provocation as far as India is concerned.
Compared to that, the Ladakh incident is a mere pin prick. One also
wonders if the Chinese have decided that strengthening its proxy
Pakistan is in its long term interest rather than any normalisation of
relations with India.
For all the talk of China taking a long-term view of relations, this
seems a particularly myopic course of action. A course of action that
India has studiously avoided vis a vis China and Taiwan.
While Chou En Lie in 1960s quite rightly pointed out that India and
China must move away from the disputes created by Western imperialism,
it seems that China is supporting the biggest imperialist creation --
Pakistan!
This author stands by a suggestion made at track II in 2006 that India
and China must tackle its border disputes sector by sector. For
instance, there is no dispute over the border alignment in Uttarakhand
[ Images ] (Garhwal Kumaon area) as well as border along Himachal
Pradesh [ Images ]. These could well be demarcated and demilitarised.
Aksai Chin area should be demarcated with realistic give and take and
China should withdraw its fraudulent claim on Arunachal Pradesh.
Will India and China have the sense to do this before the American
power 'pivots' to Asia? Future of peace in Asia may well depend on
these decisions.
rediff
the 'Johnson line' in Aksai Chin? That is a question that needs to be
asked to the Indian shouting brigade. The Chinese also need to be
asked as to why they wish to implement the 'MacDonald McCartney' line
drawn by British Imperialists? asks Col (retd) Anil Athale.
The recent face of between India [ Images ] and China in the Aksai
Chin area makes one feel a strong sense of déjà vu! It is only last
year that the country observed the 50th anniversary of that
unfortunate conflict and much ink was spilled by the Indian media to
assert how '1962' will not be repeated!
Yet what is one to make out of a leading national English daily giving
screaming headline, 'Chinese pitch 5th Tent in disputed area!' The
jingoism, uninformed comments, criticism of government, cries of
'surrender to the Chinese'. If a Rip Van Vinkle would have woken up
after 50 years he would find it all very familiar.
Naville Maxwell's otherwise biased account (India's China War) has one
very pertinent observation, 'Indian government was goaded into
foolhardy action by an un-informed media and public opinion to embark
on a disastrous course of action'.
Let us at least after 50 years be rational and stop being emotional
where Aksai Chin is concerned. Aksai Chin was essentially a 'No Man's
Land' between Ladakh and Tibet [ Images ]. A god forsaken cold desert
where 'not a blade of grass grows' as famously remarked by Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru [ Images ]! Aksai Chin became part of British India
in a typical 'imperial' map making exercise that wanted a land wedge
between the eastward expanding Russia [ Images ] and Tibet.
The threat never materialised and Aksai Chin remained a line on map.
Neither we nor the Chinese showed any interest in this area till the
late 1950s when they constructed a road between the two restive
provinces of Xingang and Tibet. It was militarily important for them.
They did this unilaterally without even informing India. Instead of
acknowledging the Chinese interest and accepting that India had none
and the dubious nature of the status of Aksai Chin area, we went in
for a 'maximalist' solution, claimed whole of Aksai Chin as ours and
despite known military weakness embarked on a 'flag showing'
aggressive creation of small posts to bolster our claim -- as if this
was some legal domestic land dispute where possession is 9/10 of law!
Even 51 years after the dispute we seemed stuck in justifying our
claims based on legacy of British imperialism! If Aksai Chin had some
strategic importance for us then one would understand the use of
history in terms of real politick, but our response to the Chinese
provocation seems wholly emotional and out of proportion to the
Chinese actions.
Countries that wish to invade territory do not do so by pitching tents!
This does not mean that the Chinese actions are merely 'tactical' as
PM has said. The decision to establish tents and structures in
'disputed' areas must have been taken at higher level. If the post
established is threatening our access to the areas to the north, then
we must take appropriate action. But this is a plea to let the armed
forces and government do the needful and there is no need for the
'emotional' response.
We must, while safeguarding our interests of defence of Ladakh, also
acknowledge that Aksai Chin is indeed a disputed territory. Our claim
to this area and Chinese counter claim stands on an entirely different
footing than say Arunachal Pradesh. Chinese claim on whole of
Arunachal Pradesh is spurious and goes against their own 'principles'
where they have accepted the MacMohan line and watershed principle to
demarcate border with Myanmar.
If one could venture to suggest a solution to Aksai Chin dispute, the
Russia-China agreement on Amur-Usuri border offers a good model. But
both sides must look at the dispute through a prism of 'realism' and
discard the baggage of history.
But the current stand off, certainly initiated by the Chinese, is
curious in terms of timing. China is at this very moment engaged in a
far more serious face off with Japan [ Images ] over the
Diaoyu/Senkaku islands. The Chinese premier is scheduled to visit
India soon. There is scheduled Indo-US meet in May to discuss China
specifically.
Is this a 'signal' to India to stay away from the US-Japan axis? Or is
it a typical media manipulation by the west to thwart and Sino-Indian
rapprochement? It is difficult to comment with the fog of
disinformation so thick.
A word of caution to the main opposition party in India, it must not
play into the hands of media manipulators and make this a 'domestic'
political issue. All Indians must stand behind the government/armed
forces for whatever action they deem fit. It is time the main
opposition behaved in a mature manner and not like the leader of
opposition did during the 1999 Kargil [ Images ] conflict with
Pakistan.
There is a possibility that the Chinese have decided to activate the
Sino-Indian border in view of the developing situation in Afghanistan
post the US withdrawal in 2014. This may be one of the ways that China
wants to help its 'all weather' friend Pakistan.
Incidentally, the Chinese help to Pakistan in increasing its nuclear
arsenal is far greater provocation as far as India is concerned.
Compared to that, the Ladakh incident is a mere pin prick. One also
wonders if the Chinese have decided that strengthening its proxy
Pakistan is in its long term interest rather than any normalisation of
relations with India.
For all the talk of China taking a long-term view of relations, this
seems a particularly myopic course of action. A course of action that
India has studiously avoided vis a vis China and Taiwan.
While Chou En Lie in 1960s quite rightly pointed out that India and
China must move away from the disputes created by Western imperialism,
it seems that China is supporting the biggest imperialist creation --
Pakistan!
This author stands by a suggestion made at track II in 2006 that India
and China must tackle its border disputes sector by sector. For
instance, there is no dispute over the border alignment in Uttarakhand
[ Images ] (Garhwal Kumaon area) as well as border along Himachal
Pradesh [ Images ]. These could well be demarcated and demilitarised.
Aksai Chin area should be demarcated with realistic give and take and
China should withdraw its fraudulent claim on Arunachal Pradesh.
Will India and China have the sense to do this before the American
power 'pivots' to Asia? Future of peace in Asia may well depend on
these decisions.
rediff
Too many Congress contenders for Karnataka CM's post
If the exit polls in Karnataka are to be believed, the Congress will
manage to scrape through and get a thin majority in the state
assembly, when the votes are finally counted on Wednesday.
But the party may have a tough time in selecting a chief minister as
senior leaders Dr G Parameshwar and Siddaramaiah are both eyeing the
coveted post.
Siddaramaiah, who is considered a mass leader, wields greater
influence among the people. But he is considered a relative newcomer
as he has joined the Congress only six years ago.
Parameshwar, as the president of the state unit of the party, can take
credit for the Congress's victory in the election. But his electoral
performance in his constituency Koratageri may be the final factor in
deciding his candidature for the top post.
If both Siddaramaiah and Parameshwar win by convincing margins, the
party will have a tough time in choosing the CM.
To avoid a rupture in the party ranks, the Congress high command may
urge both leaders to take turns to serve as the chief minister.
The Congress party may spring a surprise by electing a leader who has
not openly been in the running for the top post. Senior Karnataka
leaders like Oscar Fernandes, Veerappa Moily and Mallikarjuna Kharge
fit the bill.
While Kharge seems to be the most obvious 'compromise' candidate,
Moily or Fernandes may be chosen for their proximity to party
president Sonia Gandhi. But if either of these leaders is chosen as
the chief minister, the Karnataka unit of the party will face the
threat of a revolt by the followers of both Siddaramaiah and
Parameshwar.
According to sources in the party, both Moily and Fernandes have been
out of touch with state politics for a while.
Kharge is a senior leader who is known for his loyalty and lack of
political rivals. Over the years, he has patiently waited at the
sidelines while other Congress leaders -- namely S M Krishna [ Images
] and Dharam Singh -- beat him to the CM's post.
If the Congress fails to get a simple majority, it will have to team
up with either the Janada Dal-Secular or the Karnataka Janata Party,
both of which are likely to support Kharge's candidature.
rediff
manage to scrape through and get a thin majority in the state
assembly, when the votes are finally counted on Wednesday.
But the party may have a tough time in selecting a chief minister as
senior leaders Dr G Parameshwar and Siddaramaiah are both eyeing the
coveted post.
Siddaramaiah, who is considered a mass leader, wields greater
influence among the people. But he is considered a relative newcomer
as he has joined the Congress only six years ago.
Parameshwar, as the president of the state unit of the party, can take
credit for the Congress's victory in the election. But his electoral
performance in his constituency Koratageri may be the final factor in
deciding his candidature for the top post.
If both Siddaramaiah and Parameshwar win by convincing margins, the
party will have a tough time in choosing the CM.
To avoid a rupture in the party ranks, the Congress high command may
urge both leaders to take turns to serve as the chief minister.
The Congress party may spring a surprise by electing a leader who has
not openly been in the running for the top post. Senior Karnataka
leaders like Oscar Fernandes, Veerappa Moily and Mallikarjuna Kharge
fit the bill.
While Kharge seems to be the most obvious 'compromise' candidate,
Moily or Fernandes may be chosen for their proximity to party
president Sonia Gandhi. But if either of these leaders is chosen as
the chief minister, the Karnataka unit of the party will face the
threat of a revolt by the followers of both Siddaramaiah and
Parameshwar.
According to sources in the party, both Moily and Fernandes have been
out of touch with state politics for a while.
Kharge is a senior leader who is known for his loyalty and lack of
political rivals. Over the years, he has patiently waited at the
sidelines while other Congress leaders -- namely S M Krishna [ Images
] and Dharam Singh -- beat him to the CM's post.
If the Congress fails to get a simple majority, it will have to team
up with either the Janada Dal-Secular or the Karnataka Janata Party,
both of which are likely to support Kharge's candidature.
rediff
Why India deserves a better Food Security Bill
Any meaningful food security programme should aim at gradually
reducing the number of hungry dependent on government support,' says
Devinder Sharma. 'This is only possible if the government had looked
at the entire issue in a sincere manner.'
'I don't think at any stage the government was honest in its approach.
It had simply worked and reworked the Food Security Bill keeping the
2014 election in mind.'
There is so much of hype and expectation from the proposed National
Food Security bill that I have begun to fear for the hungry millions.
For a country which has the largest population of hungry and
malnourished in the world, I was expecting a sensible piece of
legislation, which looks beyond immediate political gains, to build up
a society that does not have to depend upon food doles so as to emerge
free from the clutches of hunger in the long run.
The proposed bill aims at providing highly subsidised grains to 67 per
cent of the population to begin with. In the years to come, I am sure
the coverage under the food security programme would be further
extended.
Even before the bills make a provision for supplying grains at Rs
3/2/1 for rice/wheat/millets to the eligible households, some states
have already moved in with universal distribution of rice at Rs 1/kg
as in Tamil Nadu, to an equally attractive roti-dal scheme in Punjab,
and more lately Tamil Nadu going a step ahead by offering
Idli/Sambhar/Curd rice at a phenomenally low price.
If it is a one-time entitlement, I can understand the political logic.
But don't we remember the age-old Chinese adage: If you want to feed a
man for a day, give him fish. But if you want to feed him for
lifetime, teach him how to catch fish.
For a country which ranks 66 among 105 countries in the latest Global
Hunger Index rankings, and which has a deplorable 47 per cent of the
children under 5 living in acute malnutrition, Sonia Gandhi's resolve
to have a legally-binding legislation on food security certainly
provided a historic opportunity.
But looking at what is available in the public domain, I must
acknowledge it is an opportunity lost.
First, the National Advisory Council repackaged the public
distribution system in a new format, and then the continuing wrangling
between the concerned ministries only showed how myopic our thinking
is.
Simply by putting the old wine in a new bottle and adding a couple of
legal provisions will not provide freedom from hunger.
Let us not forget, the Integrated Child Development Scheme as well as
MNREGA have legal provisions which have failed to deliver. Legal
entitlement alone cannot serve as a guarantee.
For a country as diverse as India, a one size fits all approach will
not work. It has to be a multi-pronged approach.
First and foremost, it has to be acknowledged that the artificially
stringent poverty Planning Commission comes up with is actually the
food insecure line. At Rs 28.65 per capita daily consumption in cities
and Rs 22.42 in rural areas it is not possible to buy two square meals
a day.
These are the people who need emergency food aid.
For the 77 per cent population that the Arjun Sengupta Committee had
categorised in the report of the National Commission for Enterprise in
the Unorganised Sector, a different approach to address food security
concerns need to be put in place.
In essence, what India needs is not one, but two lines that makes a
clear distinction between the acute hungry and the poor. The approach
to address hunger should be different for both the categories.
Over 550,000 villages of India's total 638,000 villages produce food
crops. Most of these villages have something to sell in the market.
How come a number of people go to bed hungry in the same village that
produces enough food?
Why can't a food security system be launched that takes care of the
hungry in the same villages (or a cluster of villages) that produce
surplus food?
Even in the heart of the hunger belt of Kalahandi in Odisha I have
seen villages which have not faced hunger for several decades now.
These are the villages which have small traditional foodgrain banks
and have operationalised a system of sharing and caring which has
worked successfully over time.
The Gola system in Bihar is another well-known example. I know scores
of such villages across the country where hunger is by and large
history.
It is not difficult to redesign a national programme that makes
India's villages self-reliant in food security. This will not only
reduce the dependence on public distribution system, but also restrict
the massive financial outgo year after year.
Instead of keeping almost a quarter of the population dependent upon
food doles every year, such a programme will prepare poor households
to take care of their own hunger.
At the same time, what is not being told is whether the proposed bill
will reduce the number of hungry in the years to come.
With 14.5 million farmers quitting agriculture between 2004-2005 and
2009-2010, and another 5 million jobs in manufacturing sector lost in
the same period, I fear the percentage of people depending on monthly
rations will grow with every passing year.
The proposed Food Security Bill has to be seen in the light of several
policy changes that are being simultaneously brought in.
To begin with, the government proposes to introduce cash-for-food
before the 2014 election. This little understood proposal is being
timed with a food ministry suggestion of capping food procurement.
In addition, the Food Corporation of India is being asked to abandon
its sovereign role and instead venture into commodity trading (See my
analysis: http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.in/2013/05/cash-for-food-will-strike-at-very.html).
What India needs is a hunger programme that ensures food security at
the household and village level.
Food security cannot be ensured without suitably modifying economic
policies in agriculture, rural development, science and technology and
international trade.
I find no such effort being made. In fact, these policies run counter
to the massive hunger programme being re-launched. Any meaningful food
security programme should aim at gradually reducing the number of
hungry dependent on government support. This is only possible if the
government had looked at the entire issue in a sincere and holistic
manner.
I don't think at any stage the government was honest in its approach.
It had simply worked and reworked the Food Security Bill keeping the
2014 election in mind.
rediff.com
reducing the number of hungry dependent on government support,' says
Devinder Sharma. 'This is only possible if the government had looked
at the entire issue in a sincere manner.'
'I don't think at any stage the government was honest in its approach.
It had simply worked and reworked the Food Security Bill keeping the
2014 election in mind.'
There is so much of hype and expectation from the proposed National
Food Security bill that I have begun to fear for the hungry millions.
For a country which has the largest population of hungry and
malnourished in the world, I was expecting a sensible piece of
legislation, which looks beyond immediate political gains, to build up
a society that does not have to depend upon food doles so as to emerge
free from the clutches of hunger in the long run.
The proposed bill aims at providing highly subsidised grains to 67 per
cent of the population to begin with. In the years to come, I am sure
the coverage under the food security programme would be further
extended.
Even before the bills make a provision for supplying grains at Rs
3/2/1 for rice/wheat/millets to the eligible households, some states
have already moved in with universal distribution of rice at Rs 1/kg
as in Tamil Nadu, to an equally attractive roti-dal scheme in Punjab,
and more lately Tamil Nadu going a step ahead by offering
Idli/Sambhar/Curd rice at a phenomenally low price.
If it is a one-time entitlement, I can understand the political logic.
But don't we remember the age-old Chinese adage: If you want to feed a
man for a day, give him fish. But if you want to feed him for
lifetime, teach him how to catch fish.
For a country which ranks 66 among 105 countries in the latest Global
Hunger Index rankings, and which has a deplorable 47 per cent of the
children under 5 living in acute malnutrition, Sonia Gandhi's resolve
to have a legally-binding legislation on food security certainly
provided a historic opportunity.
But looking at what is available in the public domain, I must
acknowledge it is an opportunity lost.
First, the National Advisory Council repackaged the public
distribution system in a new format, and then the continuing wrangling
between the concerned ministries only showed how myopic our thinking
is.
Simply by putting the old wine in a new bottle and adding a couple of
legal provisions will not provide freedom from hunger.
Let us not forget, the Integrated Child Development Scheme as well as
MNREGA have legal provisions which have failed to deliver. Legal
entitlement alone cannot serve as a guarantee.
For a country as diverse as India, a one size fits all approach will
not work. It has to be a multi-pronged approach.
First and foremost, it has to be acknowledged that the artificially
stringent poverty Planning Commission comes up with is actually the
food insecure line. At Rs 28.65 per capita daily consumption in cities
and Rs 22.42 in rural areas it is not possible to buy two square meals
a day.
These are the people who need emergency food aid.
For the 77 per cent population that the Arjun Sengupta Committee had
categorised in the report of the National Commission for Enterprise in
the Unorganised Sector, a different approach to address food security
concerns need to be put in place.
In essence, what India needs is not one, but two lines that makes a
clear distinction between the acute hungry and the poor. The approach
to address hunger should be different for both the categories.
Over 550,000 villages of India's total 638,000 villages produce food
crops. Most of these villages have something to sell in the market.
How come a number of people go to bed hungry in the same village that
produces enough food?
Why can't a food security system be launched that takes care of the
hungry in the same villages (or a cluster of villages) that produce
surplus food?
Even in the heart of the hunger belt of Kalahandi in Odisha I have
seen villages which have not faced hunger for several decades now.
These are the villages which have small traditional foodgrain banks
and have operationalised a system of sharing and caring which has
worked successfully over time.
The Gola system in Bihar is another well-known example. I know scores
of such villages across the country where hunger is by and large
history.
It is not difficult to redesign a national programme that makes
India's villages self-reliant in food security. This will not only
reduce the dependence on public distribution system, but also restrict
the massive financial outgo year after year.
Instead of keeping almost a quarter of the population dependent upon
food doles every year, such a programme will prepare poor households
to take care of their own hunger.
At the same time, what is not being told is whether the proposed bill
will reduce the number of hungry in the years to come.
With 14.5 million farmers quitting agriculture between 2004-2005 and
2009-2010, and another 5 million jobs in manufacturing sector lost in
the same period, I fear the percentage of people depending on monthly
rations will grow with every passing year.
The proposed Food Security Bill has to be seen in the light of several
policy changes that are being simultaneously brought in.
To begin with, the government proposes to introduce cash-for-food
before the 2014 election. This little understood proposal is being
timed with a food ministry suggestion of capping food procurement.
In addition, the Food Corporation of India is being asked to abandon
its sovereign role and instead venture into commodity trading (See my
analysis: http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.in/2013/05/cash-for-food-will-strike-at-very.html).
What India needs is a hunger programme that ensures food security at
the household and village level.
Food security cannot be ensured without suitably modifying economic
policies in agriculture, rural development, science and technology and
international trade.
I find no such effort being made. In fact, these policies run counter
to the massive hunger programme being re-launched. Any meaningful food
security programme should aim at gradually reducing the number of
hungry dependent on government support. This is only possible if the
government had looked at the entire issue in a sincere and holistic
manner.
I don't think at any stage the government was honest in its approach.
It had simply worked and reworked the Food Security Bill keeping the
2014 election in mind.
rediff.com
I’m an Indian politician… on TV
Are they parliamentarians, or do they just play ones on TV? After
pushing through proposals on foreign investment in the retail and the
aviation sector late last year, India's elected representatives
apparently have decided to get as little done as possible during the
current session.
On television, it's another matter. Newsroom studios appear to be the
preferred forum for debating problems and legislation that normally
would be the province of parliament. Those include recent demands by
the coalition government's prime opponent, the Bharatiya Janata Party,
for the resignations of the prime minister, law minister and the
railway minister over accusations that the government interfered with
an investigation of improper allocation of coal mine licenses and
certain other bribery allegations.
The Lok Sabha, or "people's house," has repeatedly adjourned in recent
days, likely making it one of the least productive in its history.
That's bad if you want to pass bills, but it does help clear
politicians' schedules for the nightly news discussion programs. And
that is not a bad thing, depending on whom you ask.
"The effort is to inform the public," said BJP spokeswoman Nirmala
Sitharaman. "We don't think even for a minute we'll accept this charge
that we are disrupting parliament … This government wants to have a
debating club run without any accountability".
Here's a sample of what substitutes exist for debate in the Lok Sabha
(May 6, prime time shows):
Times Now
Show Header - Food Bill vs Railgate, Populism vs Controversy? Speaker
of the House (i.e. the anchor) - Arnab Goswami; Participants –
Bhalchandra Mungekar, Congress MP; Piyush Goyal, BJP MP; Subramanian
Swamy, Janata Party Chief
Headlines Today
Show Header – Dr. Dolittle Should Go? Speaker of the House – Rahul
Kanwal; Participants – Meenakshi Lekhi, national spokeswoman, BJP;
Mani Shankar Iyer, Congress MP; Subramanian Swamy
CNN-IBN
Show Header - Ministers embarrass government; Speaker of the house –
Rajdeep Sardesai; Participants – Satyavrat Chaturvedi, Congress MP;
Nirmala Sitharaman, national spokeswoman, BJP
This kind of ersatz public debate taking place on the airwaves is not
funny, but "tragic," said political analyst Amulya Ganguli. "This is
part of the cynical attitude which marks Indian politicians of all
parties."
Rajdeep Sardesai, anchor and editor of CNN-IBN's prime-time show,
disagreed, as you might expect. "I think a prime time news show is
different from parliament … a prime time news show gives the MPs a
platform to represent their viewpoint in a manner that parliament
sadly no longer allows them."
There are various reasons that the BJP or other opposition parties
might have to disrupt parliament. Experts say that they lack the
numbers to defeat the Congress party-led ruling coalition by sheer
votes, leaving them to resort to technical tactics – or general chaos.
That in theory allows for back-room negotiations that could produce
more orderly votes that go in the direction that some parties want.
The current budget session of parliament ends on May 10.
The trouble? It endangers the passage of bills that are important for
the economy at a time when a high current account deficit, inflation
fears and a poor debt ratings outlook threaten the country. Various
bills such as the land acquisition bill, food security bill and the
ones which propose to increase foreign investment in pension and
insurance sectors are stuck in parliament.
In the end, TV debates amount to publicity stunts, said D H Pai
Panandiker, head of the RPG Foundation, a New Delhi-based think tank.
"Things are going to go on like this … I am not expecting much to come
out even of the monsoon session."
reuters
pushing through proposals on foreign investment in the retail and the
aviation sector late last year, India's elected representatives
apparently have decided to get as little done as possible during the
current session.
On television, it's another matter. Newsroom studios appear to be the
preferred forum for debating problems and legislation that normally
would be the province of parliament. Those include recent demands by
the coalition government's prime opponent, the Bharatiya Janata Party,
for the resignations of the prime minister, law minister and the
railway minister over accusations that the government interfered with
an investigation of improper allocation of coal mine licenses and
certain other bribery allegations.
The Lok Sabha, or "people's house," has repeatedly adjourned in recent
days, likely making it one of the least productive in its history.
That's bad if you want to pass bills, but it does help clear
politicians' schedules for the nightly news discussion programs. And
that is not a bad thing, depending on whom you ask.
"The effort is to inform the public," said BJP spokeswoman Nirmala
Sitharaman. "We don't think even for a minute we'll accept this charge
that we are disrupting parliament … This government wants to have a
debating club run without any accountability".
Here's a sample of what substitutes exist for debate in the Lok Sabha
(May 6, prime time shows):
Times Now
Show Header - Food Bill vs Railgate, Populism vs Controversy? Speaker
of the House (i.e. the anchor) - Arnab Goswami; Participants –
Bhalchandra Mungekar, Congress MP; Piyush Goyal, BJP MP; Subramanian
Swamy, Janata Party Chief
Headlines Today
Show Header – Dr. Dolittle Should Go? Speaker of the House – Rahul
Kanwal; Participants – Meenakshi Lekhi, national spokeswoman, BJP;
Mani Shankar Iyer, Congress MP; Subramanian Swamy
CNN-IBN
Show Header - Ministers embarrass government; Speaker of the house –
Rajdeep Sardesai; Participants – Satyavrat Chaturvedi, Congress MP;
Nirmala Sitharaman, national spokeswoman, BJP
This kind of ersatz public debate taking place on the airwaves is not
funny, but "tragic," said political analyst Amulya Ganguli. "This is
part of the cynical attitude which marks Indian politicians of all
parties."
Rajdeep Sardesai, anchor and editor of CNN-IBN's prime-time show,
disagreed, as you might expect. "I think a prime time news show is
different from parliament … a prime time news show gives the MPs a
platform to represent their viewpoint in a manner that parliament
sadly no longer allows them."
There are various reasons that the BJP or other opposition parties
might have to disrupt parliament. Experts say that they lack the
numbers to defeat the Congress party-led ruling coalition by sheer
votes, leaving them to resort to technical tactics – or general chaos.
That in theory allows for back-room negotiations that could produce
more orderly votes that go in the direction that some parties want.
The current budget session of parliament ends on May 10.
The trouble? It endangers the passage of bills that are important for
the economy at a time when a high current account deficit, inflation
fears and a poor debt ratings outlook threaten the country. Various
bills such as the land acquisition bill, food security bill and the
ones which propose to increase foreign investment in pension and
insurance sectors are stuck in parliament.
In the end, TV debates amount to publicity stunts, said D H Pai
Panandiker, head of the RPG Foundation, a New Delhi-based think tank.
"Things are going to go on like this … I am not expecting much to come
out even of the monsoon session."
reuters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)