Ear to the Ground
BJP’s foreign connection
So what is this ‘foreign connection’, rather ‘the Italian connection’ of the BJP that the Congress has dug up to counter the ‘foreign origin’ issue? And why is the BJP so embarrassed and keen to dismiss Dr B S Moonje as a Hindu Mahasabha leader with no connection with the RSS? Who is Dr Moonje anyway?
While putting more emphasis on rebutting the Congress’ other charge—that L K Advani’s family possessed a Victoria buggy in pre-1947 Karachi which demonstrated that the family was pro-British—as factually incorrect, a senior BJP leader and party spokesman sought to downplay the Moonje affair last Wednesday. He not only denied Moonje’s relations with the RSS but tried to make light of his admiration for and meeting with Mussolini by drawing parallel with Subhash Chandra Bose’s attempt to get the help of Hitler in his fight against the British.
For the uninitiated, the Moonje affair came to public arena a few years ago with the publication of a report by Marzia Casolari, described as an Italian scholar, in the Economic and Political Weekly issue of January 2000. She sought to substantiate the ‘fascist ideological background of Hindu fundamentalism’ through ‘archival evidence’.
In her report she said: “According to the literature promoted by the RSS and other Hindu fundamentalist organisations and parties, the structure of the RSS was the result of Dr Hedgewar’s vision and work. However, Moonje played a crucial role in moulding the RSS along Italian (fascist) lines…”
She went on to quote from Moonje’s diary, newspaper reports of the time and other historical materials to strengthen her argument. According to her, Moonje went to Rome in 1931, on his return from the Round Table Conference, met Mussolini and visited a few fascist military organisations. What he learnt there was passed on to the RSS.
But what was his connection with RSS? “One can wonder at the association between B S Moonje and the RSS but if we think that Moonje had been Dr Hedgewar’s mentor the association will be much clearer”, she wrote.
Then she quoted from a book by B V Deshpande and S R Ramaswamy, Dr Hedgewar, the Epock-Maker, published in 1981 to make the relations clearer. “It was indeed Moonje who brought up the young Hedgewar in his own house and later on sent to Calcutta, officially to study at the National Medical College, but with the secret aim to get in touch with the revolutionary organisations in Bengal.”
And what was Hedgewar’s connection with the Hindu Mahasabha? He was secretary to the Hindu Mahasabha from 1926 to 1931, according to British intelligence report of March 7, 1942.
Casolari provided answer to the doubts raised by the BJP about the links between Hindu Mahasabha and RSS in those days too. She said: “According to the commonly accepted opinion—supported by the organisations of militant Hinduism—the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha have never been particularly close, and, during Savarkar’s presidentship, they severed their links. Reality, however, seems to be starkly different. In fact, the available documentation shows not only that such a split never existed, but that the two organisations always had strict connections…”
She asserted that Hedgewar went to Ratnagiri to meet Savarkar after he decided to set up RSS in 1925 “in order to obtain from his suggestions and advice” and claimed that she found several letters exchanged between the two among ‘Hedgewar papers’ in Nagpur.
Again for the uninitiated, the Hindutva concept of the RSS and the BJP comes from a book of Savarkar by the same name, and gives a glimpse of why the Hindutva brigade so dislikes anything of ‘foreign origin’. Savarkar wrote about Muslims in his book: “Their holyland is far off in Arabia or Palestine. Their mythology and Godmen, ideas and heroes are not the children of this soil. Consequently, their names and their outlook smack of foreign origin.”
The Italian scholar had probably anticipated that the Hindutva brigade would try to obfuscate its critics by equating Moonje’s love for Mussolini with Subhash Chandra Bose’s attempt to seek outside help to fight the British. So she wrote: “Moonje’s trip to Italy, contrary to what happened in the case of Subhash Chandra Bose and other nationalists, did not give place to any further co-operation between Hindu nationalism and the fascist regime. However, these contacts were important at the ideological and organisational level…” She reminded that neither the Hindu Mahasabha nor the RSS took part in the Quit India movement.
Casolari concluded that the contact between fascism and Hindu nationalism resulted in militarising Hindu society and creating a militant mindset among the Hindus. At the same time, she points out, RSS’s shakha was a ‘typically Indian phenomenon’.
Coming back to the Moonje connection, the Italian scholar quoted from a British intelligence report published in 1933 to reveal how Moonje, the RSS and the fascist character of RSS were intimately inter-linked. The report, “Note on the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh”, she said, ascribed to Moonje the responsibility of the organisation of the Sangh in the Marathi speaking districts and in the Central Province in 1927. Describing the activity and the character of the RSS, the report warned: “It is perhaps no exaggeration to assert that the Sangh hopes to be in future India what the “Fascisti” are to Italy and the “Nazis” to Germany.”
Monday, November 26, 2007
Ear to the ground
Of ignorance and inaptitude
Come to think of it, nobody, including the government which legislated the measure, knew for close to ten years that political ads were banned on private television channels and other cable television networks. Thanks to a spat between the Information and Broadcasting Ministry and the Election Commission the fact has come to public knowledge. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry has drawn attention to the advertising code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995. This code says: “No advertisement shall be permitted the objectives whereof are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature; advertisements must not be directed towards any religious or political end.”
The Election Commission’s first directive banning political ads came way back in 1998. For obvious reasons, nobody challenged it then. The logic behind the move was simple. The commission wanted to provide a ‘level-playing field’ to smaller political parties who couldn’t have matched bigger and financially stronger political parties in terms of airtime. The commission also argued that since DD and AIR provided free airtime to all political parties, on the basis of past electoral performance, there was no need for additional propaganda. That was the time when the commission and the government were thinking in terms of state-funding of elections and bringing down the role of money in electioneering to the bare minimum.
It was when the commission re-issued its directive the next year, in 1999, that it was challenged in Andhra Pradesh High Court. The court struck it down but the commission didn’t know about it. So, it issued the same directive again in November last year. When someone pointed out the court ruling, the directive was withdrawn and the Information and Broadcasting Ministry informed accordingly. This wasn’t the first time that the ministry was being informed. The commission’s earlier directive too was meant for the ministry and all political parties. It was only last month that the ministry got back to the commission saying that withdrawal of its directive didn’t make sense since the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995 banned it anyway! The commission then asked the ministry to implement its own law. That is when all hell broke loose.
True, it is difficult to monitor over 100 TV channels and about 30,000 cable operators in the country. But instead of saying so, it blamed the commission for its discomfort, evoking strong reaction from CEC T S Krishnamurthy.
The commission officials acknowledge their ignorance about the ban and explain that they didn’t know because they were “not consulted while the said legislation was being framed or enacted”. No such excuse is available to the ministry. But why on earth did the ministry frame such a rule in the first place? Private television channels and cable networks had quite a powerful presence in 1995 too. How can a particular medium of mass communication, that too the most powerful one of the time, be kept out of the biggest democratic exercise? The only logical answer is that the ministry babus didn’t apply their minds and simply copied down DD’s advertising code that says ads “must not be directed towards any religious or political ends…” while framing the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995.
But don’t expect the babus and their minister to explain. They haven’t yet explained why they wanted to impose the Conditional Access System (CAS) and why don’t they scrap it altogether now. Probably, most of them don’t know what they are doing and why. Expect them to keep doing weird things.
Expect the Election Commission to flounder too. It has begun working like a bureaucratic set up. Former CEC M S Gill was often derided as a publicity seeker but it goes in his credit that he initiated public debate on electoral reforms. He periodically invited journalists and political parties to his office and discussed various ways and means to cleanse the system. But that practice has been discontinued. As a result, the only worthwhile move made to reform the electoral system in post-Gill phase was at the instance of a few public-spirited individuals. They went to the apex court and asked for a directive which would force those aspiring for public office to furnish details about their educational qualifications, assets and criminal antecedents at the time of filing nominations.
Krishnamurthy tried and failed miserably in his very first attempt to bring in change by way of providing voters the “right to reject” a candidate. Last Sunday he said he had approached the government with a proposal to provide an option “none of the above” in the electronic voting machine so that the voters could exercise their “right to reject” if they felt the political parties had not fielded deserving candidates. He also said that the government didn’t bother to respond. Not many political leaders and government officials, even ex-CEC MS Gill, could react to the proposal saying they didn’t know the details. Some reacted to it saying that there was no need for it since a large chunk of voters absented themselves expressing their lack of faith in candidates and political parties in any case. CPM leader Somnath Chatterjee said this would result in chaos and that would be the end of parliamentary democracy in the country. Not a very pleasant turn of events. He could have achieved a better result had he sought public debate on it, rather than passing on a note to the government and hoping for things to happen on their own.
Of ignorance and inaptitude
Come to think of it, nobody, including the government which legislated the measure, knew for close to ten years that political ads were banned on private television channels and other cable television networks. Thanks to a spat between the Information and Broadcasting Ministry and the Election Commission the fact has come to public knowledge. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry has drawn attention to the advertising code prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995. This code says: “No advertisement shall be permitted the objectives whereof are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature; advertisements must not be directed towards any religious or political end.”
The Election Commission’s first directive banning political ads came way back in 1998. For obvious reasons, nobody challenged it then. The logic behind the move was simple. The commission wanted to provide a ‘level-playing field’ to smaller political parties who couldn’t have matched bigger and financially stronger political parties in terms of airtime. The commission also argued that since DD and AIR provided free airtime to all political parties, on the basis of past electoral performance, there was no need for additional propaganda. That was the time when the commission and the government were thinking in terms of state-funding of elections and bringing down the role of money in electioneering to the bare minimum.
It was when the commission re-issued its directive the next year, in 1999, that it was challenged in Andhra Pradesh High Court. The court struck it down but the commission didn’t know about it. So, it issued the same directive again in November last year. When someone pointed out the court ruling, the directive was withdrawn and the Information and Broadcasting Ministry informed accordingly. This wasn’t the first time that the ministry was being informed. The commission’s earlier directive too was meant for the ministry and all political parties. It was only last month that the ministry got back to the commission saying that withdrawal of its directive didn’t make sense since the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995 banned it anyway! The commission then asked the ministry to implement its own law. That is when all hell broke loose.
True, it is difficult to monitor over 100 TV channels and about 30,000 cable operators in the country. But instead of saying so, it blamed the commission for its discomfort, evoking strong reaction from CEC T S Krishnamurthy.
The commission officials acknowledge their ignorance about the ban and explain that they didn’t know because they were “not consulted while the said legislation was being framed or enacted”. No such excuse is available to the ministry. But why on earth did the ministry frame such a rule in the first place? Private television channels and cable networks had quite a powerful presence in 1995 too. How can a particular medium of mass communication, that too the most powerful one of the time, be kept out of the biggest democratic exercise? The only logical answer is that the ministry babus didn’t apply their minds and simply copied down DD’s advertising code that says ads “must not be directed towards any religious or political ends…” while framing the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995.
But don’t expect the babus and their minister to explain. They haven’t yet explained why they wanted to impose the Conditional Access System (CAS) and why don’t they scrap it altogether now. Probably, most of them don’t know what they are doing and why. Expect them to keep doing weird things.
Expect the Election Commission to flounder too. It has begun working like a bureaucratic set up. Former CEC M S Gill was often derided as a publicity seeker but it goes in his credit that he initiated public debate on electoral reforms. He periodically invited journalists and political parties to his office and discussed various ways and means to cleanse the system. But that practice has been discontinued. As a result, the only worthwhile move made to reform the electoral system in post-Gill phase was at the instance of a few public-spirited individuals. They went to the apex court and asked for a directive which would force those aspiring for public office to furnish details about their educational qualifications, assets and criminal antecedents at the time of filing nominations.
Krishnamurthy tried and failed miserably in his very first attempt to bring in change by way of providing voters the “right to reject” a candidate. Last Sunday he said he had approached the government with a proposal to provide an option “none of the above” in the electronic voting machine so that the voters could exercise their “right to reject” if they felt the political parties had not fielded deserving candidates. He also said that the government didn’t bother to respond. Not many political leaders and government officials, even ex-CEC MS Gill, could react to the proposal saying they didn’t know the details. Some reacted to it saying that there was no need for it since a large chunk of voters absented themselves expressing their lack of faith in candidates and political parties in any case. CPM leader Somnath Chatterjee said this would result in chaos and that would be the end of parliamentary democracy in the country. Not a very pleasant turn of events. He could have achieved a better result had he sought public debate on it, rather than passing on a note to the government and hoping for things to happen on their own.
Ear to the ground
The importance of Arif and Najma
On the face of it, the Congress leaders have written off Arif Mohammad Khan’s entry into the BJP and Najma Heptullah’s similar plans as inconsequential but the unease is far too evident to be missed. True, they are not mass leaders. Khan can claim a limited vote-base in UP and Heptullah none whatsoever. She has always been nominated to the Upper House and is stand-offish in her approach. The damage, therefore, is not much in terms of vote. What then is causing so much discomfort to the Congress leaders? For, even the Congress president reacted sharply to Heptullah’s utterances against the party saying: “Congress is an ideological party and the people who have no faith in the party's ideology and violate party discipline have no place in it.”
Not that the BJP is claiming it would gain any minority vote because of them. In fact, senior party leaders say whatever minority vote they get is all because of Atal Behari Vajpayee’s image as a statesman and a moderate leader. That is why the three-point action plan which the party adopted at the convention of the minority community in New Delhi last Wednesday included the decision to set up “Support Atal Behari Vajpayee Committees” comprising entirely of Muslims. And contrary to what many would like to believe, the BJP does get some Muslim votes. There are no data to substantiate it but those familiar with ground realities peg the figure at four to five percent, which is about one percent of the grand total.
So, what then would the BJP gain by inducting Khan and wooing Heptullah? Plenty. Ask the BJP strategists and they would tell you that the party is, in fact, aiming for wooing “secular” and “liberal” Hindu votes through them! Even if the party manages to win over a fraction of such votes the gain in terms of seats could be significant. This is the section of Hindu voters who love to hate the BJP by branding it as communal and don’t vote for Vajpayee even if it believes he stands for peace, development and communal harmony and has statesman like qualities. A senior BJP leader said on condition of anonymity: “They (Khan and Heptullah) won’t fetch us votes. Our gain is in terms of the Hindu votes. Our image among the Hindus would certainly improve.” Of course, he was referring to “liberal and secular” Hindus. Hardcore Hindus are already in their camp.
The BJP is convinced the Muslims wouldn’t actually queue up outside their offices in large numbers to enrol themselves or support during the polls whatever they may do. Vijay Goel, Minister of State for Youth Affairs and Sports, who won the Chandni Chowk seat twice, is determined to switch from his Muslim-dominated Chandni Chowk seat to Hindu-dominated Delhi Sadar. All because Pervez Hashmi, who cornered the minority votes (about 30 percent vote share) and made sure the Congress candidate lost the election on past two occasions, has joined the Congress. He knows his defeat is ensured if he persists with Chandni Chowk.
Syed Shahabuddin has this comment to offer on the issue of Khan and Heptullah siding with the BJP: “The BJP’s objective is not to get Muslim votes but liberal Hindu votes--the fence sitters. They want to show to liberal Hindus that they are changing and not communal anymore. They are stuck on a plateau (in terms of Hindu votes) and want to increase their vote share by at least another five percent (with the help of liberal Hindus).”
It may be pointed out that the BJP has never shown any inclination to really expand its minority support base. In fact, such an approach wouldn’t fit with their ideological makeup. The Sangh Parivar has always worked towards uniting the entire Hindu community, which the BJP is continuing. For this purpose it has adopted a twin strategy: One is evident in ghar wapsi and trishul dikshya functions, Ayodhya movement and post-Godhra pogrom. This helps consolidating the hardcore Hindu votes.
One of the reasons why the BJP adopted Dr Ambedkar is that they found it convenient to quote him on his advice to the Scheduled Castes not to convert to Islam. Their favourite line is from Dhananjay Keer’s biography, Dr Ambedkar: Life and Mission: “…It has become a habit with the Scheduled Castes to look upon the Muslims as their friends simply because they dislike the Hindus. This is a mistaken view.”
The other strategy is to expand the social base through alliance with Mayawati, Ram Vilas Paswan and Nitish Kumar who are leaders of backward castes.
If Sir Vidiadhar Naipul was called to the party headquarters on Thursday it was because he was the only intellectual of international standing to support the ‘Hindu resurgence’ and, well, he is also famous for pointing out flaws in Islamic societies.
Had the BJP strategy not purely been Hindu-centric, it wouldn’t have accorded Narender Modi and Dilip Singh Judeo the star status during the last Assembly campaign. Modi was so important that his campaign schedule was circulated to media persons, along with that of the big three-Vajpayee, Advani and Venkaiah Naidu. Judeo was caught on videotape taking bribe but that was brushed aside. More recently, Kalyan Singh, the poster boy of the Ayodhya movement, was brought back and what is his battle cry? Ram ka naam, Vajpayee ka kaam.
The importance of Arif and Najma
On the face of it, the Congress leaders have written off Arif Mohammad Khan’s entry into the BJP and Najma Heptullah’s similar plans as inconsequential but the unease is far too evident to be missed. True, they are not mass leaders. Khan can claim a limited vote-base in UP and Heptullah none whatsoever. She has always been nominated to the Upper House and is stand-offish in her approach. The damage, therefore, is not much in terms of vote. What then is causing so much discomfort to the Congress leaders? For, even the Congress president reacted sharply to Heptullah’s utterances against the party saying: “Congress is an ideological party and the people who have no faith in the party's ideology and violate party discipline have no place in it.”
Not that the BJP is claiming it would gain any minority vote because of them. In fact, senior party leaders say whatever minority vote they get is all because of Atal Behari Vajpayee’s image as a statesman and a moderate leader. That is why the three-point action plan which the party adopted at the convention of the minority community in New Delhi last Wednesday included the decision to set up “Support Atal Behari Vajpayee Committees” comprising entirely of Muslims. And contrary to what many would like to believe, the BJP does get some Muslim votes. There are no data to substantiate it but those familiar with ground realities peg the figure at four to five percent, which is about one percent of the grand total.
So, what then would the BJP gain by inducting Khan and wooing Heptullah? Plenty. Ask the BJP strategists and they would tell you that the party is, in fact, aiming for wooing “secular” and “liberal” Hindu votes through them! Even if the party manages to win over a fraction of such votes the gain in terms of seats could be significant. This is the section of Hindu voters who love to hate the BJP by branding it as communal and don’t vote for Vajpayee even if it believes he stands for peace, development and communal harmony and has statesman like qualities. A senior BJP leader said on condition of anonymity: “They (Khan and Heptullah) won’t fetch us votes. Our gain is in terms of the Hindu votes. Our image among the Hindus would certainly improve.” Of course, he was referring to “liberal and secular” Hindus. Hardcore Hindus are already in their camp.
The BJP is convinced the Muslims wouldn’t actually queue up outside their offices in large numbers to enrol themselves or support during the polls whatever they may do. Vijay Goel, Minister of State for Youth Affairs and Sports, who won the Chandni Chowk seat twice, is determined to switch from his Muslim-dominated Chandni Chowk seat to Hindu-dominated Delhi Sadar. All because Pervez Hashmi, who cornered the minority votes (about 30 percent vote share) and made sure the Congress candidate lost the election on past two occasions, has joined the Congress. He knows his defeat is ensured if he persists with Chandni Chowk.
Syed Shahabuddin has this comment to offer on the issue of Khan and Heptullah siding with the BJP: “The BJP’s objective is not to get Muslim votes but liberal Hindu votes--the fence sitters. They want to show to liberal Hindus that they are changing and not communal anymore. They are stuck on a plateau (in terms of Hindu votes) and want to increase their vote share by at least another five percent (with the help of liberal Hindus).”
It may be pointed out that the BJP has never shown any inclination to really expand its minority support base. In fact, such an approach wouldn’t fit with their ideological makeup. The Sangh Parivar has always worked towards uniting the entire Hindu community, which the BJP is continuing. For this purpose it has adopted a twin strategy: One is evident in ghar wapsi and trishul dikshya functions, Ayodhya movement and post-Godhra pogrom. This helps consolidating the hardcore Hindu votes.
One of the reasons why the BJP adopted Dr Ambedkar is that they found it convenient to quote him on his advice to the Scheduled Castes not to convert to Islam. Their favourite line is from Dhananjay Keer’s biography, Dr Ambedkar: Life and Mission: “…It has become a habit with the Scheduled Castes to look upon the Muslims as their friends simply because they dislike the Hindus. This is a mistaken view.”
The other strategy is to expand the social base through alliance with Mayawati, Ram Vilas Paswan and Nitish Kumar who are leaders of backward castes.
If Sir Vidiadhar Naipul was called to the party headquarters on Thursday it was because he was the only intellectual of international standing to support the ‘Hindu resurgence’ and, well, he is also famous for pointing out flaws in Islamic societies.
Had the BJP strategy not purely been Hindu-centric, it wouldn’t have accorded Narender Modi and Dilip Singh Judeo the star status during the last Assembly campaign. Modi was so important that his campaign schedule was circulated to media persons, along with that of the big three-Vajpayee, Advani and Venkaiah Naidu. Judeo was caught on videotape taking bribe but that was brushed aside. More recently, Kalyan Singh, the poster boy of the Ayodhya movement, was brought back and what is his battle cry? Ram ka naam, Vajpayee ka kaam.
Ear to the ground
But PSUs are meant to be milked!
Civil Aviation Minister Rajiv Pratap Rudy’s behaviour is indefensible not only for the way he went about milking the Airport Authority of India but also the way he sought to justify it. But if one were to go through the affairs of his ministry, Rudy’s case can be easily ignored. Flip through the latest reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, submitted in Parliament in the last session, and you would get the point.
CAG Report No. 4 of 2004, which reviewed performance of selected public sector undertakings between April 1998 and March 2003 has this to say about the Indian Airlines:
* Wage bill of IA went up by Rs 143 crore, though the number of employees went down by 11 percent during the period. Additional wage bill was met with periodic hikes in airfare.
* Productivity Linked Incentives (PLI) went up by over Rs 100 crore during the period but there was no corresponding gain to the company. The total PLI package was to the tune of Rs 1,450 crore while IA actually incurred a loss of Rs 585.83 crore during the same period! Here are some details:
(i) IA paid fixed productivity allowance/special productivity allowance amounting to Rs 250 crore during the period. But this payment was not linked to performance or productivity;
(ii) Pilots and flight engineers were paid flying allowances to the tune of Rs 4 crore even while they were on privilege leave;
(iii) Cockpit crew were paid Rs 2.79 crore even while they were not on flying duty but flying with passengers from one base station to another for operation of return flight. Mind you, this is over and above 65 percent normal flying allowance cockpit crew get, as per their agreement with the company, even when they are travelling thus;
(iv) An extra sum of Rs 33 lakh of flying allowance was paid for flying Air India in domestic sector, at the rate of 50 percent more than what is allowed. The plea: “After operation of such flights, pilots had to remain idle for three consecutive days due to Flight Duty Time Limitation.” CAG found this claim dubious and
(v) An excess layover allowance of Rs 3.22 crore was paid between February 2001 and March 2003, though all such previous allowance had been replaced with productivity allowance that started in 1996, for no reason or rhyme.
(The CAG report actually points out through facts and figures how the performance level for productivity linked incentives was actually pegged lower than the average, thus “rewarding employees for achieving average performance!)
* Cabin crew and pilots were paid Rs 13.57 crore as ‘out-of-pocket expenses’ over and above the terms of settlement entered with their unions, which already made a provision towards this.
* Rs 8.12 crore paid for professional development allowance although the company was already reimbursing expenditure on technical and professional literature.
As one can guess the ministry didn’t bother to respond when CAG suggested corrective measures. Any wonder the ministry officials jumped to Rudy’s support in his hour of crisis?
But why pick on Indian Airlines alone. CAG’s scrutiny (Report No. 3 of 2004) revealed seven PSUs made payment of Rs 17 crore to officers on foreign travel between October 1995 and March 2003 without even asking for vouchers. All seven PSUs--ITPO, Shipping Corporation, IRCON International, HAL, Bharat Earth Movers, Bharat Electronics Limited and others—had their own explanations, which CAG said, were not acceptable.
Another instance: Report No. 3 gives details of how MMTC, State Trading Corporation and PEC Limited made an excess payment of Rs 5.33 crore to its employees by way of leave enchashment of earned leaves by calculating a 26-day month, instead of 30-day month as is the norm. And how did the PSUs explain it? Among other things, they said, other PSUs too followed similar practice and it was done to make the VRS more attractive.
If you think these are minor aberrations, read this. Food Corporation of India was supplied excess rice valued at Rs 133 crore between April 2001 and September 2002 to exporters. The exporters were to be given a certain amount of extra rice to account for broken grains. But FCI hiked the limit arbitrarily and needless to say, the exporters were richer by at least Rs 133 crore.
The list is long and there are accounts of all kinds of dubious activities that PSUs indulge in. All such activities involve huge money transactions and one can safely assume that such dubious activities are not accidental.
Take for example the Oil India’s award for drilling four wells in Saurashtra and North East Coast in 1993. The award went to a private company knowing fully well that the company was not capable of doing the job. The company was found technically deficient and incompetent at various stages of the work too but no punitive action was taken, even the performance bond was not invoked in time. Finally, the contract was terminated but not before the Oil India had lost Rs 74 crore and got embroiled in unnecessary litigation, which is continuing.
In yet another case, Power Finance Corporation disbursed loans amounting to Rs 99.32 crore to a private party for building a hydel project without adhering to normal safeguards and terms and conditions of disbursement in 1999-2000. Work is, naturally, on hold.
In all, it is a cosy world out there, the world of public sector undertakings. Bureaucrats, politicians and their friends and relatives coexist happily, using PSUs to fund their private pleasures without anybody really disturbing them. The Rudy affair happens only once in decades. Everybody would soon forget it. CAG reports, in any case, doesn’t matter much for the ruling establishments.
But PSUs are meant to be milked!
Civil Aviation Minister Rajiv Pratap Rudy’s behaviour is indefensible not only for the way he went about milking the Airport Authority of India but also the way he sought to justify it. But if one were to go through the affairs of his ministry, Rudy’s case can be easily ignored. Flip through the latest reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, submitted in Parliament in the last session, and you would get the point.
CAG Report No. 4 of 2004, which reviewed performance of selected public sector undertakings between April 1998 and March 2003 has this to say about the Indian Airlines:
* Wage bill of IA went up by Rs 143 crore, though the number of employees went down by 11 percent during the period. Additional wage bill was met with periodic hikes in airfare.
* Productivity Linked Incentives (PLI) went up by over Rs 100 crore during the period but there was no corresponding gain to the company. The total PLI package was to the tune of Rs 1,450 crore while IA actually incurred a loss of Rs 585.83 crore during the same period! Here are some details:
(i) IA paid fixed productivity allowance/special productivity allowance amounting to Rs 250 crore during the period. But this payment was not linked to performance or productivity;
(ii) Pilots and flight engineers were paid flying allowances to the tune of Rs 4 crore even while they were on privilege leave;
(iii) Cockpit crew were paid Rs 2.79 crore even while they were not on flying duty but flying with passengers from one base station to another for operation of return flight. Mind you, this is over and above 65 percent normal flying allowance cockpit crew get, as per their agreement with the company, even when they are travelling thus;
(iv) An extra sum of Rs 33 lakh of flying allowance was paid for flying Air India in domestic sector, at the rate of 50 percent more than what is allowed. The plea: “After operation of such flights, pilots had to remain idle for three consecutive days due to Flight Duty Time Limitation.” CAG found this claim dubious and
(v) An excess layover allowance of Rs 3.22 crore was paid between February 2001 and March 2003, though all such previous allowance had been replaced with productivity allowance that started in 1996, for no reason or rhyme.
(The CAG report actually points out through facts and figures how the performance level for productivity linked incentives was actually pegged lower than the average, thus “rewarding employees for achieving average performance!)
* Cabin crew and pilots were paid Rs 13.57 crore as ‘out-of-pocket expenses’ over and above the terms of settlement entered with their unions, which already made a provision towards this.
* Rs 8.12 crore paid for professional development allowance although the company was already reimbursing expenditure on technical and professional literature.
As one can guess the ministry didn’t bother to respond when CAG suggested corrective measures. Any wonder the ministry officials jumped to Rudy’s support in his hour of crisis?
But why pick on Indian Airlines alone. CAG’s scrutiny (Report No. 3 of 2004) revealed seven PSUs made payment of Rs 17 crore to officers on foreign travel between October 1995 and March 2003 without even asking for vouchers. All seven PSUs--ITPO, Shipping Corporation, IRCON International, HAL, Bharat Earth Movers, Bharat Electronics Limited and others—had their own explanations, which CAG said, were not acceptable.
Another instance: Report No. 3 gives details of how MMTC, State Trading Corporation and PEC Limited made an excess payment of Rs 5.33 crore to its employees by way of leave enchashment of earned leaves by calculating a 26-day month, instead of 30-day month as is the norm. And how did the PSUs explain it? Among other things, they said, other PSUs too followed similar practice and it was done to make the VRS more attractive.
If you think these are minor aberrations, read this. Food Corporation of India was supplied excess rice valued at Rs 133 crore between April 2001 and September 2002 to exporters. The exporters were to be given a certain amount of extra rice to account for broken grains. But FCI hiked the limit arbitrarily and needless to say, the exporters were richer by at least Rs 133 crore.
The list is long and there are accounts of all kinds of dubious activities that PSUs indulge in. All such activities involve huge money transactions and one can safely assume that such dubious activities are not accidental.
Take for example the Oil India’s award for drilling four wells in Saurashtra and North East Coast in 1993. The award went to a private company knowing fully well that the company was not capable of doing the job. The company was found technically deficient and incompetent at various stages of the work too but no punitive action was taken, even the performance bond was not invoked in time. Finally, the contract was terminated but not before the Oil India had lost Rs 74 crore and got embroiled in unnecessary litigation, which is continuing.
In yet another case, Power Finance Corporation disbursed loans amounting to Rs 99.32 crore to a private party for building a hydel project without adhering to normal safeguards and terms and conditions of disbursement in 1999-2000. Work is, naturally, on hold.
In all, it is a cosy world out there, the world of public sector undertakings. Bureaucrats, politicians and their friends and relatives coexist happily, using PSUs to fund their private pleasures without anybody really disturbing them. The Rudy affair happens only once in decades. Everybody would soon forget it. CAG reports, in any case, doesn’t matter much for the ruling establishments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)