Sunday, April 21, 2019
Why is EC scared of acting against Modi and Shah?
Friday, April 19, 2019
Why EC’s pusillanimity poses a great threat to our democracy
Not published by India Today
Among the five parameters, India scored the highest – a near perfect 9.17 – in ‘electoral process and pluralism’ as is shown in the table below.
‘Decline of democracy in India’ and creeping autocratization
In their 2018 book, How Democracies Die, they observe that most democratic breakdowns post-Cold War have been caused by the elected governments through subversion of democratic institutions, unlike classic coup d’état of the past.
They didn’t write about India. But discernible observers will note a similarity in recent years with the ‘basic norms’ falling like nine pins, particularly in the run up to and during the on-going poll campaign.
While a free and fair election is not the panacea for all that may ail India’s democracy, it remains a very critical factor. No wonder the Supreme Court has, in several of its orders relating to the electoral laws (Representation of the People Act of 1951) insisted on maintaining the “purity of the electoral process” – free of unhealthy practices.[4]
Thursday, April 11, 2019
2019 (missing) reports: Government is equally responsible for ensuring neutrality and level-playing field during elections & Explained: How Rahul Gandhi's minimum income guarantee is different from universal basic income
Government is equally responsible for ensuring neutrality and level-playing field during elections
The governments have as much responsibility of ensuring free and fair elections and providing a level-playing field for all candidates and political parties as the ECI.
- Prasanna Mohanty
- New Delhi
- April 10, 2019
- UPDATED: April 11, 2019 07:26 IST
HIGHLIGHTS
- IT and ED raids targeting the Opposition parties vitiate level-playing field, giving advantage to the party in power - which goes against Model Code of Conduct
- IT is expected to report to ECI during election campaign and limit itself to checking misuse of money power, not to misuse power in a partial and discriminatory way
- IT and ED have conducted several raids targeting the Opposition rank - TDP, DMK and JD(S) - after the MCC came into effect on March 10
Even while a war of words is going on between the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Finance Ministry over maintaining neutrality in raids against political parties while the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is in force, it has come to the notice that 15 raids have been carried out targeting the Opposition parties by the Income Tax department (IT) alone in the past six months.
Last Sunday the ECI had written to the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India strongly advising that the enforcement agencies working under his supervision - IT and Enforcement Directorate (ED) - should be absolutely neutral, impartial and non-discriminatory in their action against political parties.
The immediate provocation was the IT raids on the Congress leader Kamal Nath's associates in 52 locations in four states bang in the middle of electioneering - five days ahead of the first phase of polling. The raiding party from Delhi was accompanied with CRPF personnel and the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Madhya Pradesh had no prior information about it.
On Tuesday, the Revenue Secretary and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) rebutted the ECI's charges and instead advised the ECI to curb the use of illicit money and keep tax officers in loop. The ECI is understood to have told them to keep it informed if its action related to electoral malpractice.
IT & ED targeting the Opposition
In the run up to this event, the IT and ED have conducted several raids targeting the Opposition rank - TDP, DMK and JD(S) - after the MCC came into effect on March 10.
On April 5, the IT raided TDP MP CM Ramesh and his supporters in Andhra Pradesh's Kadapa, following which the Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu went on a dharna in Amravati. Naidu has been complaining of harassment at the hand of the Central enforcement agencies after he snapped ties with the NDA government.
On March 28, in another pre-dawn swoop, the IT officials accompanied with the CRPF personnel from Delhi raided the JD(S) minister for minor irrigation CS Puttaraju, his nephew and PWD minister HD Revanna's associates in Karnataka.
On March 29, there was yet another IT raid, this time on another Opposition party. The DMK's treasurer Durai Murugan and his institutions were raided in Vellore, Katpadi and other places in Tamil Nadu.
Government is equally responsible for fair elections
The governments have as much responsibility of ensuring free and fair elections and providing a level-playing field for all candidates and political parties as the ECI.
In 1979, a new chapter was added to the MCC specifically for stopping misuse of official machinery - Part VII: Party in Power. The first line of this chapter says : "The party in power whether at the Centre or in the State or States concerned shall ensure that no cause is given for any complaint that it has used its official position for the purposes of its election campaign..."
In 2010, former Chief Election Commission SY Quraishi (2010-12) added a division to the ECI - Expenditure Monitoring Division (EMD) - to check misuse of money power in electioneering and is manned by the Revenue Service officials.
The EMD had issued a directive to the CBDT chairman on January 16, 2013 , clearly defining the role of the IT during electioneering: (a) keep track of "movement of undisclosed cash during election process" and (b) "for this purpose, the services of the officers and officials under the supervision of Director General of Income Tax (Inv.) in charge of the state are requisitioned by the Commission".
This means the IT department is required to report to the ECI, not the other way round and it has to confine itself to checking misuse of money power. Its routine investigations are supposed to take a backseat during the elections so as not to influence the elections in any way - as has been the practice until now.
When asked for his views on the recent raids and the ECI's notice to the Revenue Secretary, Quraishi told India Today: "Not at all. This has never happened. In our time, the government agencies were extra careful not to vitiate, harm or influence any candidate or party in any way. Normal activities were postponed. This (raids by IT and ED) is totally unprecedented and so has the ECI written to the Revenue Secretary."
Regarding the misuse of official machinery vis-a-vis the Part VII of MCC, Quraishi said, "It (Part VII) is directed against the government which has an extra responsibility. It (government) has an advantage which has to be neutralised to ensure a level-playing field".
SK Mendiratta - who served the legal department of the ECI for 52 long years (1964-2018), the last 20 of which as the legal advisor post his retirement - also confirmed that such a directive had never been issued in the past.
"It never happened. Raids are violation of Part VII. There is no legal angle to it. If something is wrong, action can be taken by the government agencies. The only thing to see is that nothing political is done to disturb the level-playing field."
A serving ECI official said on the condition of anonymity that such raids on the Opposition parties do constitute misuse of official machinery and violates the Part VII. The ECI expects the government agencies to maintain decorum, restraint and ensure that powers are exercised legitimately, he added.
MCC is voluntary without statutory backing, but has worked well until now
The MCC was adopted voluntarily by the political parties, ECI and government of the day in 1968-69 but has the backing of the Supreme Court and High Court in their several rulings in the past. It has worked well until now and the ECI has always argued in favour of maintaining its voluntary nature which gives it moral authority in the conduct of elections in a free and fair manner.
The recent events - selective raids on the Opposition rank during the electioneering and the ensuing war of words between the ECI and Finance Ministry - have the potential to derail the MCC and vitiate the elections to the advantage of the party in power but to the detriment of the Opposition, raising questions about the free and fair nature of the elections in India.
Explained: How Rahul Gandhi's minimum income guarantee is different from universal basic income
The idea of a universal basic income has been discussed on the sidelines in India, but Rahul Gandhi promising that Congress would ensure minimum income guarantee for the poor has brought that debate into the mainstream
- Prasanna Mohanty
- New Delhi
- January 29, 2019
- UPDATED: January 30, 2019 07:32 IST
The threat of automation and the widening divide between the rich and the poor have pushed the world to consider different income redistribution concepts in the past few years. And one of the concepts that has received the most attention is the idea of a universal basic income, or UBI.
Until a few years ago, UBI -- the idea that government guarantee a fixed monthly income to every citizen of a country -- was largely a utopian one. But now, that probably is an idea whose time has come, to borrow Victor Hugo's words famously quoted by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh while unleashing the liberalisation process in his 1991 budget.
The idea of universal basic income was discussed in India, like it was in the rest of the world. But that debate took place largely on the sidelines.
Yesterday, however, that idea entered the mainstream when Congress chief Rahul Gandhi announced that if his party was voted to power in the upcoming general elections, it would ensure a minimum income guarantee for the poor.
Rahul Gandhi did not go into the details of his proposal. But, UBI quickly became MIG. However, the two are different.
UBI vs MIG
The most popular version of universal basic income is one where every single citizen of a country -- regardless of her social, educational or economic standing -- gets a guaranteed monthly income.
In India, the concept of universal basic income is slightly different. The concept was studied during the ruling Narendra Modi government's term.
In 2016-17, the Economic Survey of India studied the idea and presented a model for UBI. The basic premise of the Economic Survey's UBI was: "A just society needs to guarantee to each individual a minimum income which they can count on, and which provides the necessary material foundation for a life with access to basic goods and a life of dignity".
The Economic Survey of India's model of UBI suggested providing Rs 7,620 per annum to 75 per cent of India's population. The income was based on Tendulkar's poverty line of 2011-12 inflation-indexed to 2016-17.
Now, Rahul Gandhi's plan seems to target only the poor. Rahul Gandhi has not said whether his proposed minimum income guarantee will cover 22 per cent of the population (as fixed by Tendulkar) or 29.5 per cent (fixed by Rangarajan). Also, Rahul Gandhi has not declared what the "minimum income" has would be.
Suresh Tendulkar and C Rangarajan headed committees that studied poverty in India. Both arrived at different qualification of poverty.
The essential difference between UBI and MIG is this: A universal basic income provides a monthly stipend that would ensure that a person would be above the poverty line without any other source of income. (Thus, the Economic Survey of India suggested a UBI of Rs 7,620 per annum).
A minimum income guarantee, on the other hand, is pretty much at the discretion of the government of the day -- it can be equal, more or less than the poverty line expenditure.
Rebooting Economy 70: The Bombay Plan and the concept of AatmaNirbhar Bharat
The Bombay Plan, authored by the doyens of industry in 1944 first envisioned state planning, state ownership and control of industries to ...
-
Governance Now Sept 1-15 And paid a heavy price for exposing wrongdoings in the intelligence agency So far you have heard or read of the o...
-
Firstpost Oct 8, 2018 Editor's Note: Landlessness is increasingly becoming endemic in India's rural belt, as over 56 percent ...
-
The government gives guaranteed return to private companies in its business dealings and considers their profit-motive good and desirable....