governancenow.com, sept 4
As shortage of Bihari farmhand begins to pinch, Punjabi farmers are welcoming them with open arms and better wages
Bihar’s growth story – though 11 percent growth rate in the state GDP is being questioned now – has an interesting fallout: Punjab’s farmers are facing a severe labour crunch, especially during the peak season of paddy transplantation, which is a completely manual exercise and spans over the monsoon months of June and July.
So much so that the labour cost has nearly tripled in the last couple of years. While it may not matter much to the big farmers, it is a cause of alarm for others.
Jarnail Singh of Majhi village in Sangrur’s Bhawanigarh block is one of them. With 13 acre of fertile land, he has been growing mainly paddy in the kharif season. Having switched over to the basmati, which is sowed later than the other varieties, he had hoped for relief. But Bihar’s growth story has turned it into a nightmare.
“Last year, I had to delay transplantation for several days because the pravasi majdoors (seasonal migrants from Bihar) were not available. Eventually, when I got them, they charged Rs 1,800 for an acre of transplantation. This year, I found none and went for the local labourers who charged Rs 2,000 for the same work. Again I was late this year,” he says, narratinghis woes.
Until 2007, the pravasi majdoors were available for Rs 700-800.
Persisting labour trouble has forced Jarnail Singh to rethink. He wants to experiment next year either by going for direct sowing of paddy, as he does in the case of wheat by using a “seed drill”, or buy a Japanese transplanting machine.
The case of his neighbour, Zora Singh, who owns four acre of land, is no different. But instead of waiting for the migrant labourers, he simply hires the locals.
Ever since Punjab started growing paddy in 1975 (not a traditional crop), there’s no escape from the pravasi majdoors from Bihar who are considered experts in transplantation and harvesting. A large number of migrants have settled in the state permanently. Jarnail Singh’s uncle Major Singh, who owns more than 30 acre of farm land in the same village, has hired one of them, Mandal Pal, for Rs 38,000 for the year. With the labour becoming dearer, Major Singh had to pay Rs 10,000 more to retain him than what he had paid him last year.
Pal, 32, came to live with his parents on the outskirt of Majha village ever since he was four. His father Ramji and mother Radha Rani migrated to Punjab decades ago from Saharsa in Bihar. “Bhukhe marte the. Khane ko dana nahin milta tha (we were starving, didn’t have a grain to eat),” says Radha Rani about the circumstances that forced them to migrate. Now, they have houses, one of which the government built under the Indira Awas Yojna, ration cards and plenty of work.
According to a study by the Punjab Agriculture University, there are about 4,21,000 permanent migrant labourers in Punjab, of which 90 percent are from Bihar. M S Siddhu, head of the economics department who supervised the study in 2006-07, says the number of migrants doubled to 8,50,000 during the peak season (at the time of paddy transplantation). But in 2009 and 2010, the peak number has gone down to nearly 600,000.
“Look at the growth rate of Bihar, which is much higher than Punjab’s five percent. The NREGS has also started. That is why the number has come down,” he explains.
Used as they are to these migrant labourers, Punjab’s farmers are finding it difficult to cope with the change. No wonder some of them, from Bhawanigarh block, lined up at the nearby Dhuri railway station in mid-June to welcome the pravasis disembarking from trains with placards that read: “Welcome to Punjab for paddy transplantation with free boarding and lodging, mobile phones and TV sets.”
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Govt slips in another kill bill clause for nuke non-liability
governancenow.com august 28
Provision to take over “full liability” of nuclear installation defeats its very purpose
For the fourth time, the government has played mischief with the nuclear liability bill.
The BJP completely missed it and the Left realize the mischief only partly when the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 was passed in Lok Sabha on Wednesday.
Surreptitiously, the government added a new line to clause 7 that talks about government’s liability in case of nuclear disaster. This says, “Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, assume full liability for a nuclear installation not operated by it if it is of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest”.
This one line defeats the whole purpose of the bill, which is to fix liability of the operators of nuclear installations and the suppliers of nuclear equipments. In fact, it kills the bill.
This is how:
By taking over “full liability” of the installation, the government is completely absolving the operator of any liability. This much is clear. By not defining “public interest” nor specifying conditions under which a nuclear installation can be take over, the government provides sufficient leeway to absolve the supplier of liability too.
Besides, once a nuclear accident happens (only then the question of taking over full liability comes to play), how is one going to define “public interest”? A nuclear accident, or any accident for that matter which has an wider ramification, becomes a matter of public interest!
The government’s intentions may be different, as some may argue, but here is a law that says very unambiguously that the liability can be taken over by the government. This means, liability will be paid by the tax payers – the victims of nuclear disaster and the rest of us.
In effect, this makes the nuclear operator to operate on the premise that profits are its own, liability is that of Indian people.
The Left got it and even moved an amendment to withdraw it but it didn’t realize the full implication of the provision. Blinkered as its vision is, Basudev Acharya of the CPM said his party is opposed to this new addition to the bill on two grounds. One, this makes way for private operators and second, it means subsidizing liability of private operator.
The Left is off the mark because the entire bill is meant for private operators since all existing nuclear installations run by the central government bodies don’t and haven’t needed a bill to fix liability or award compensation. In case of an accident, the central government has “unlimited” liability.
Moreover, “subsidy” is partial liability while the bill says very specifically of “full liability”.
The BJP, of course, seemingly missed it. Rajiv Pratap Rudy, a member of the parliamentary standing committee that examined the nuclear bill, couldn’t explain, when asked, why his party didn’t protest against the latest mischief. May be his party leadership knew it and put up a charade of opposing “willful”, “intent” etc added to link liability to the suppliers while working out a deal with the government in private for other spin offs.
Prabir Purkayastha, founding member and secretary of the Delhi Science Forum, who was consulted by the parliamentary panel that went through the bill, rings an alarm bell.
“It is a very dangerous provision as it gives a complete free hand to the government to take over the operator’s liability and thereby, defeats the larger purpose of the bill”, he says. He says by not defining “public interest” and not providing the conditions under which the government can take over the liability, this can be done through an executive fiat which is a “dangerous” situation to have.
It would be interesting to watch how Rajya Sabha reacts to it when the bill is take up for passage on Monday.
Link: http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/govt-slips-another-kill-bill-clause-nuke-non-liability
Provision to take over “full liability” of nuclear installation defeats its very purpose
For the fourth time, the government has played mischief with the nuclear liability bill.
The BJP completely missed it and the Left realize the mischief only partly when the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 was passed in Lok Sabha on Wednesday.
Surreptitiously, the government added a new line to clause 7 that talks about government’s liability in case of nuclear disaster. This says, “Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, assume full liability for a nuclear installation not operated by it if it is of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest”.
This one line defeats the whole purpose of the bill, which is to fix liability of the operators of nuclear installations and the suppliers of nuclear equipments. In fact, it kills the bill.
This is how:
By taking over “full liability” of the installation, the government is completely absolving the operator of any liability. This much is clear. By not defining “public interest” nor specifying conditions under which a nuclear installation can be take over, the government provides sufficient leeway to absolve the supplier of liability too.
Besides, once a nuclear accident happens (only then the question of taking over full liability comes to play), how is one going to define “public interest”? A nuclear accident, or any accident for that matter which has an wider ramification, becomes a matter of public interest!
The government’s intentions may be different, as some may argue, but here is a law that says very unambiguously that the liability can be taken over by the government. This means, liability will be paid by the tax payers – the victims of nuclear disaster and the rest of us.
In effect, this makes the nuclear operator to operate on the premise that profits are its own, liability is that of Indian people.
The Left got it and even moved an amendment to withdraw it but it didn’t realize the full implication of the provision. Blinkered as its vision is, Basudev Acharya of the CPM said his party is opposed to this new addition to the bill on two grounds. One, this makes way for private operators and second, it means subsidizing liability of private operator.
The Left is off the mark because the entire bill is meant for private operators since all existing nuclear installations run by the central government bodies don’t and haven’t needed a bill to fix liability or award compensation. In case of an accident, the central government has “unlimited” liability.
Moreover, “subsidy” is partial liability while the bill says very specifically of “full liability”.
The BJP, of course, seemingly missed it. Rajiv Pratap Rudy, a member of the parliamentary standing committee that examined the nuclear bill, couldn’t explain, when asked, why his party didn’t protest against the latest mischief. May be his party leadership knew it and put up a charade of opposing “willful”, “intent” etc added to link liability to the suppliers while working out a deal with the government in private for other spin offs.
Prabir Purkayastha, founding member and secretary of the Delhi Science Forum, who was consulted by the parliamentary panel that went through the bill, rings an alarm bell.
“It is a very dangerous provision as it gives a complete free hand to the government to take over the operator’s liability and thereby, defeats the larger purpose of the bill”, he says. He says by not defining “public interest” and not providing the conditions under which the government can take over the liability, this can be done through an executive fiat which is a “dangerous” situation to have.
It would be interesting to watch how Rajya Sabha reacts to it when the bill is take up for passage on Monday.
Link: http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/govt-slips-another-kill-bill-clause-nuke-non-liability
Friday, August 27, 2010
For god's sake Mr PM, Mamata has just accused your govt of murder
governancenow.com, aug 10, 2010
We don't expect Manmohan to sack Mamata, but will he at least reprimand her. Or just show disaproval?
Union railway minister Mamata Banerjee has raised a storm that the union government will find hard to ignore. "I believe Azad had been murdered. It was unjust,” she declared at a public rally in West Bengal’s Lalgarh yesterday referring to the death of Maoist leader Cherukuri Rajkumar alias Azad in a police encounter in Andhra Pradesh last month.
The implications are grave since she also referred to and relied on the information provided by Swami Agnivesh, the centre’s interlocutor trying to arrange peace talks with the Maoists. Agnivesh had earlier alleged that the union home ministry shadowed his movement to reach Azad who was carrying his message to the Maoist leadership holed up in Bastar when he was killed.
What Banerjee said clearly implies that the union home ministry was directly involved in the extra-judicial killing of Azad. If indeed that is so, the prime minister should act quickly and take appropriate measures. Given the fact that the Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested and put Gujarat home minister Amit Shah behind bars for his alleged role in a similar killing of Shorabuddin, the natural course is to order an inquiry and book whoever is responsible.
But since the finger this time is pointing towards his own government, it is unlikely that the prime minister will be quick on the draw in the use of his toy gun, the Central Bureau of Investigation. Of course, there is no reason to take Mamata's word on face value because to get to Writers' Building, she can say just about anything.
In that case, though, it is incumbent upon the prime minister to at least reprimand her openly for her calculated indiscretion that has put his government in a very embarrassing situation of human rights violation. Banerjee is not only directly implicating the union government in the murder, she is violating the principle of collective responsibility of the council of ministers.
Home minister P Chidambaram has threatened to jail civil society activists just for their ideological backing of the Maoists and questioning of the State. Who will read the riot act to Mamata? For god's sake, prime minister, she has just accused your government of cold blooded murder!
Link: http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/gods-sake-mr-pm-mamata-has-just-accused-your-govt-murder
We don't expect Manmohan to sack Mamata, but will he at least reprimand her. Or just show disaproval?
Union railway minister Mamata Banerjee has raised a storm that the union government will find hard to ignore. "I believe Azad had been murdered. It was unjust,” she declared at a public rally in West Bengal’s Lalgarh yesterday referring to the death of Maoist leader Cherukuri Rajkumar alias Azad in a police encounter in Andhra Pradesh last month.
The implications are grave since she also referred to and relied on the information provided by Swami Agnivesh, the centre’s interlocutor trying to arrange peace talks with the Maoists. Agnivesh had earlier alleged that the union home ministry shadowed his movement to reach Azad who was carrying his message to the Maoist leadership holed up in Bastar when he was killed.
What Banerjee said clearly implies that the union home ministry was directly involved in the extra-judicial killing of Azad. If indeed that is so, the prime minister should act quickly and take appropriate measures. Given the fact that the Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested and put Gujarat home minister Amit Shah behind bars for his alleged role in a similar killing of Shorabuddin, the natural course is to order an inquiry and book whoever is responsible.
But since the finger this time is pointing towards his own government, it is unlikely that the prime minister will be quick on the draw in the use of his toy gun, the Central Bureau of Investigation. Of course, there is no reason to take Mamata's word on face value because to get to Writers' Building, she can say just about anything.
In that case, though, it is incumbent upon the prime minister to at least reprimand her openly for her calculated indiscretion that has put his government in a very embarrassing situation of human rights violation. Banerjee is not only directly implicating the union government in the murder, she is violating the principle of collective responsibility of the council of ministers.
Home minister P Chidambaram has threatened to jail civil society activists just for their ideological backing of the Maoists and questioning of the State. Who will read the riot act to Mamata? For god's sake, prime minister, she has just accused your government of cold blooded murder!
Link: http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/gods-sake-mr-pm-mamata-has-just-accused-your-govt-murder
Reamesh shows way to good governance
governancenow.com, augt 25, 2010
Environment minister upholds the rule of law in Vedanta mining controversy
Environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh has upheld the rule by law by rejecting the proposal to mine the Niyamgiri hills in Orissa for bauxite.
As the NC Saxena committee pointed out, which was subsequently accepted by the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF), the Vedanta Alumina Ltd and the Orissa government flouted every law of the land in the way an aluminum refinery was set up in Lanjigarh and also the way the mining right was proposed to be granted.
The report has meticulously pointed out how the Forest Rights Act, the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, Forest (Conservation) Act, the Environment Protection Act and the Orissa Forest Act were violated. Worse, it says the state government misrepresented facts to get the project clearance and the Vedanta Alumina started expanding its capacity without the environment clearance.
The report didn’t spare the MoEF either. It points out how MoEF didn’t take a complete view of the project but gave piecemeal clearances, like it okayed refinery without the mining clearance. And that 11 of 14 mines from which the Vedanta gets its bauxite don’t have environment clearance!
The MoEF has also contributed to the mess by its strange practice of giving clearances in stages. In fact, the Vedanta’s project has MoEF’s environment and forest clearance --it is called “in-principle” clearance. What it has now withheld is the “final” clearance. The gap between “in-principle” clearance and “final” clearance has given opportunity to many companies to flout all the environment and forest laws.
The state government is now trying to mislead the public and the MoEF saying that it has Supreme Court’s clearance for the mining of the Niyamgiri hills. This is nothing sort of perjury because the apex court only dealt with rehabilitation and conservation of environment.
The last line of the apex court’s final judgment, given on August 8, 2008 read: “The next step would be for MoEF to grant its approval in accordance with law.” There is no ambiguity.
Sure, Ramesh would now come under pressure. The Orissa government is planning to approach the apex court on the plea that substantial amount of money has been spent in setting up and expanding the refinery in Lanjigarh and that for the sake of development of a poor state like Orissa, mining be allowed. It will of course assure that the interest of the affected people would be taken care of and that atmost care would be taken to minimize damage to the environment.
The issue is not of development. It is nobody’s case that mining activities should not be allowed. The issue is that of governance, the rule of law. No development can take place by flouting laws of the land. If that is the idea, then we should scrap all the laws that govern our environment and forests.
http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/ramesh-champions-environmental-laws-corks-niyamgiri-mining
Environment minister upholds the rule of law in Vedanta mining controversy
Environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh has upheld the rule by law by rejecting the proposal to mine the Niyamgiri hills in Orissa for bauxite.
As the NC Saxena committee pointed out, which was subsequently accepted by the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF), the Vedanta Alumina Ltd and the Orissa government flouted every law of the land in the way an aluminum refinery was set up in Lanjigarh and also the way the mining right was proposed to be granted.
The report has meticulously pointed out how the Forest Rights Act, the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, Forest (Conservation) Act, the Environment Protection Act and the Orissa Forest Act were violated. Worse, it says the state government misrepresented facts to get the project clearance and the Vedanta Alumina started expanding its capacity without the environment clearance.
The report didn’t spare the MoEF either. It points out how MoEF didn’t take a complete view of the project but gave piecemeal clearances, like it okayed refinery without the mining clearance. And that 11 of 14 mines from which the Vedanta gets its bauxite don’t have environment clearance!
The MoEF has also contributed to the mess by its strange practice of giving clearances in stages. In fact, the Vedanta’s project has MoEF’s environment and forest clearance --it is called “in-principle” clearance. What it has now withheld is the “final” clearance. The gap between “in-principle” clearance and “final” clearance has given opportunity to many companies to flout all the environment and forest laws.
The state government is now trying to mislead the public and the MoEF saying that it has Supreme Court’s clearance for the mining of the Niyamgiri hills. This is nothing sort of perjury because the apex court only dealt with rehabilitation and conservation of environment.
The last line of the apex court’s final judgment, given on August 8, 2008 read: “The next step would be for MoEF to grant its approval in accordance with law.” There is no ambiguity.
Sure, Ramesh would now come under pressure. The Orissa government is planning to approach the apex court on the plea that substantial amount of money has been spent in setting up and expanding the refinery in Lanjigarh and that for the sake of development of a poor state like Orissa, mining be allowed. It will of course assure that the interest of the affected people would be taken care of and that atmost care would be taken to minimize damage to the environment.
The issue is not of development. It is nobody’s case that mining activities should not be allowed. The issue is that of governance, the rule of law. No development can take place by flouting laws of the land. If that is the idea, then we should scrap all the laws that govern our environment and forests.
http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/ramesh-champions-environmental-laws-corks-niyamgiri-mining
Whistleblower bill is self-defeating
governancenow.com, aug 27, 2010
CVC, in present form, will do no good
Seven years in the making, the whistleblowers’ bill or the "Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010" was finally introduced in Lok Sabha on Thursday. [For the text of the bill see the attachment below.] But this long preparation has been a waste. There are several provisions that defeat the very purpose for which it is being legislated.
Some such provisions are as follows:
* The bill provides complete immunity to the Armed Forces. No complaint can be entertained against any member of the Armed Forces or anything related to the Armed Forces, not even when they are involved with “maintenance of public order”. (Clause 3)
This is nothing short of blasphemy, given the growing number of scams involving even generals and brigadiers in land deals, diversion of petrol, diesel and liquor, purchase of arms and ammunitions, uniforms and other equipments in recent years. Incidents of rape of women and killing of innocent civilians in the name of fighting militancy by the men in uniform in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast are not exactly rare. That is why a big debate is going on in the country about restricting powers given to the Armed Forces in troubled areas under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.
There is no logic in giving immunity to the Armed Forces.
* The bill provides that the identity of a complainant can be disclosed “if the Competent Authority is of the opinion that it has, for the purpose of seeking comments or explanation or report from them under sub-section (3) on the public disclosure, become necessary to reveal the identity of the public servant to the Head of the Department of the organization or authority, board or corporation concerned or office concerned, the Competent Authority may reveal the identity…..” (Clause 4)
This defeats the whole purpose of the proposed law. There is absolutely no need for the bill as this provision provides sufficient excuse to blow the cover of the whistleblower.
* There is a ridiculous provision which says no complaint can be made “after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place”. (Clause 5)
This gives an opportunity to the competent authority (Central Vigilance Commission or State Vigilance Commissioner) to first enquire into the date of the commission of offence and then reject the complaint on technical grounds.
Why this time limit if the purpose is to fight corruption? Are we to understand that corruption committed five years ago is no more so?
* Protection from harassment provided to the complainant is vague. Clause 10 (4) says that the CVC will have power to “direct the restoration of the public servant making the disclosure to the status quo ante”.
What if a public servant making a complaint is denied promotion or increments or other benefits, which is often the case? How will restoring the status quo ante will help?
* The bill is silent on private sector.
Are we to understand that there is no corruption in private sector? Or that corruption in private sector is none of our business? But then what about the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects that the government is promoting in a big way, not only in infrastructure sector but also in social sector.
Having given the powers to receive public interest disclosures and protect those making them to the CVC (in case the complaint relates to central government or its corporations etc), the bill is silent on checks and balances on the CVC. What if CVC doesn’t do its job honestly or sincerely as several such charges have been made in the recent past? A month ago, former CJI Justice Lahoti wrote an open letter to prime minister Manmohan Singh and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi alleging that whistleblowers who went to the CVC “came to grief”. Nobody has paid any attention to him. That the CVC is lax is evident from the fact that it has not prepared its annual reports for the past two years, forget about placing them in parliament as this bill proposes to do. Why so much reliance on the CVC, which has become a parking lot for the retired bureaucrats?
Clearly, the bill needs to be reworked and the CVC needs to be fixed if we are to make an honest fight against corruption.
http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/whistleblower-bill-self-defeatingLink:
CVC, in present form, will do no good
Seven years in the making, the whistleblowers’ bill or the "Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010" was finally introduced in Lok Sabha on Thursday. [For the text of the bill see the attachment below.] But this long preparation has been a waste. There are several provisions that defeat the very purpose for which it is being legislated.
Some such provisions are as follows:
* The bill provides complete immunity to the Armed Forces. No complaint can be entertained against any member of the Armed Forces or anything related to the Armed Forces, not even when they are involved with “maintenance of public order”. (Clause 3)
This is nothing short of blasphemy, given the growing number of scams involving even generals and brigadiers in land deals, diversion of petrol, diesel and liquor, purchase of arms and ammunitions, uniforms and other equipments in recent years. Incidents of rape of women and killing of innocent civilians in the name of fighting militancy by the men in uniform in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeast are not exactly rare. That is why a big debate is going on in the country about restricting powers given to the Armed Forces in troubled areas under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.
There is no logic in giving immunity to the Armed Forces.
* The bill provides that the identity of a complainant can be disclosed “if the Competent Authority is of the opinion that it has, for the purpose of seeking comments or explanation or report from them under sub-section (3) on the public disclosure, become necessary to reveal the identity of the public servant to the Head of the Department of the organization or authority, board or corporation concerned or office concerned, the Competent Authority may reveal the identity…..” (Clause 4)
This defeats the whole purpose of the proposed law. There is absolutely no need for the bill as this provision provides sufficient excuse to blow the cover of the whistleblower.
* There is a ridiculous provision which says no complaint can be made “after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place”. (Clause 5)
This gives an opportunity to the competent authority (Central Vigilance Commission or State Vigilance Commissioner) to first enquire into the date of the commission of offence and then reject the complaint on technical grounds.
Why this time limit if the purpose is to fight corruption? Are we to understand that corruption committed five years ago is no more so?
* Protection from harassment provided to the complainant is vague. Clause 10 (4) says that the CVC will have power to “direct the restoration of the public servant making the disclosure to the status quo ante”.
What if a public servant making a complaint is denied promotion or increments or other benefits, which is often the case? How will restoring the status quo ante will help?
* The bill is silent on private sector.
Are we to understand that there is no corruption in private sector? Or that corruption in private sector is none of our business? But then what about the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects that the government is promoting in a big way, not only in infrastructure sector but also in social sector.
Having given the powers to receive public interest disclosures and protect those making them to the CVC (in case the complaint relates to central government or its corporations etc), the bill is silent on checks and balances on the CVC. What if CVC doesn’t do its job honestly or sincerely as several such charges have been made in the recent past? A month ago, former CJI Justice Lahoti wrote an open letter to prime minister Manmohan Singh and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi alleging that whistleblowers who went to the CVC “came to grief”. Nobody has paid any attention to him. That the CVC is lax is evident from the fact that it has not prepared its annual reports for the past two years, forget about placing them in parliament as this bill proposes to do. Why so much reliance on the CVC, which has become a parking lot for the retired bureaucrats?
Clearly, the bill needs to be reworked and the CVC needs to be fixed if we are to make an honest fight against corruption.
http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/whistleblower-bill-self-defeatingLink:
Niyamgiri shows Gandhian humbug actually works!
governancenow.com, Aug 27
Forest Rights Act delivers first victory; tribals’ right over the Niyamgiri foils Vedanta’s mining plans
In our May 1-15 issue, we carried a report, “Tribals put faith in Gandhian humbug”, saying how two primitive tribes, the Dongaria and Kutia Kondhs of the Niyamgiri hills in Orissa, were fighting a Gandhian battle for their rights against a corporate giant, Vedanta Alumina Ltd, by using the Forest Rights Act.
When environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh announced earlier this week that the proposal to mine the Niyamgiri was being rejected because the Kondhs had the “cultural, religious and economic rights” over the proposed mining area, this marked a victory for the Kondhs. This marked a victory for the Forest Rights Act too, without which this battle for survival couldn’t have been won.
What else does this reflect? That one need not fight every battle with a gun as the Maoists do and justify it by saying that there is simply no other effective way. The primitive tribes of the Niyamgiri has demonstrated how patently false that position is. Interestingly, the Kondhs never allowed the Maoists, who have a strong presence all around the Niyamgiri, to infiltrate their ranks or take any part in their fight.
Read the complete report:
http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/niyamgiri-shows-gandhian-humbug-actually-works
Forest Rights Act delivers first victory; tribals’ right over the Niyamgiri foils Vedanta’s mining plans
In our May 1-15 issue, we carried a report, “Tribals put faith in Gandhian humbug”, saying how two primitive tribes, the Dongaria and Kutia Kondhs of the Niyamgiri hills in Orissa, were fighting a Gandhian battle for their rights against a corporate giant, Vedanta Alumina Ltd, by using the Forest Rights Act.
When environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh announced earlier this week that the proposal to mine the Niyamgiri was being rejected because the Kondhs had the “cultural, religious and economic rights” over the proposed mining area, this marked a victory for the Kondhs. This marked a victory for the Forest Rights Act too, without which this battle for survival couldn’t have been won.
What else does this reflect? That one need not fight every battle with a gun as the Maoists do and justify it by saying that there is simply no other effective way. The primitive tribes of the Niyamgiri has demonstrated how patently false that position is. Interestingly, the Kondhs never allowed the Maoists, who have a strong presence all around the Niyamgiri, to infiltrate their ranks or take any part in their fight.
Read the complete report:
http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/niyamgiri-shows-gandhian-humbug-actually-works
Friday, August 20, 2010
Mining Niyamgiri hills will be illegal: NC Saxena report
governancenow.com, Aug 16
The NC Saxena Committee has ruled out the possibility of mining the Niyamgiri hills saying that since the proposed area belongs to the tribals as per the Forest Rights Act it would be illegal to do so.
The report, which was made public today, goes on to say that “it is firmly established that the area proposed for mining lease and the surrounding thick forests are cultural, religious and economic habitat of the Dongaria Kondhs”.
“If mining is permitted on this site it will not only be illegal but it will also destroy one of the most sacred sites of the Kondh primitive tribal groups”, says the report. It goes on to add that mining, if allowed, “will have repercussions on the community’s very survival, the overall viability of this groups and its biological and social reproduction”.
The committee clearly expresses its lack of confidence in the Orissa government by saying that “from the evidence collected by the committee we conclude that the Orissa government is not likely to implement the Forest Rights Act in a fair and impartial manner” and appeals to the MoEF to take necessary steps to protect the tribals.
As for the Vedanta Alumina, the company which wants to mine the Niyamgiri for its rich bauxite deposit, the committee says it has “consistently violated the Forest (Conservation) Act, Forest Rights Act, Environment Protection Act and the Orissa Forest Act in active collusion with the state officials”.
See the attachment for the NC Saxena Committee report.
The committee’s concluding remark is telling. The report says the committee is “of the firm view that allowing mining in the proposed mining lease area by depriving two primitive tribal groups (PTG) of their rights over the proposed mining site in order to benefit a private company would shake the faith of tribal people in the laws of the land which may have serious consequences for the security and wellbeing of the entire country”.
The NC Saxena Committee has ruled out the possibility of mining the Niyamgiri hills saying that since the proposed area belongs to the tribals as per the Forest Rights Act it would be illegal to do so.
The report, which was made public today, goes on to say that “it is firmly established that the area proposed for mining lease and the surrounding thick forests are cultural, religious and economic habitat of the Dongaria Kondhs”.
“If mining is permitted on this site it will not only be illegal but it will also destroy one of the most sacred sites of the Kondh primitive tribal groups”, says the report. It goes on to add that mining, if allowed, “will have repercussions on the community’s very survival, the overall viability of this groups and its biological and social reproduction”.
The committee clearly expresses its lack of confidence in the Orissa government by saying that “from the evidence collected by the committee we conclude that the Orissa government is not likely to implement the Forest Rights Act in a fair and impartial manner” and appeals to the MoEF to take necessary steps to protect the tribals.
As for the Vedanta Alumina, the company which wants to mine the Niyamgiri for its rich bauxite deposit, the committee says it has “consistently violated the Forest (Conservation) Act, Forest Rights Act, Environment Protection Act and the Orissa Forest Act in active collusion with the state officials”.
See the attachment for the NC Saxena Committee report.
The committee’s concluding remark is telling. The report says the committee is “of the firm view that allowing mining in the proposed mining lease area by depriving two primitive tribal groups (PTG) of their rights over the proposed mining site in order to benefit a private company would shake the faith of tribal people in the laws of the land which may have serious consequences for the security and wellbeing of the entire country”.
Shame before the Game
Governance Now, Aug 16-31
If the Commonwealth Games are about national prestige, will we be left with much of it?
Each passing day brings out more embarrassing details about the Commonwealth Games’ preparations, esta-blishing clearly how it is more about a brazen loot of public money and gross incompetence/collusion of a whole set of powerful people—politicians, bureaucrats and sports managers—than anything to do with our sporting prowess.
To begin with, the cost overrun has been colossal—from Rs 1,899 crore at the time of bidding in 2003 to Rs 35,000 crore. Yet, even the basic infrastructure—stadiums, living quarters of players, practice grounds, approach roads to venues and beautification drive in the city—is not in place. The Games’ organising committee (OC) seems busier explaining various scams than in preparing for the competition.
Surprisingly, the first one to blow the whistle was a near-dysfunctional Central Vigilance Commission. It made telling comments: “ineligible agencies were awarded work”; “almost all organisations executing works for the Games (MCD, PWD, DDA, NDMC, CPWD, RITES) considered inadmissible factors to jack-up price”; price bids were “tampered” with after being opened and poor quality of works certified as good. Sitaram Yechuri, a CPM member of parliament, provided more damning evidence when he quoted official records to show how the “renovation” work on stadiums was several times costlier than building new ones—Rs 961 crore for the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Rs 669 crore for the India Gandhi Indoor Stadium, Rs 262 crore for the Dhyan Chand Hockey Stadium and so on. Contrast this with a state-of-art stadium built in Nagpur for Rs 84 crore.
Suresh Kalmadi, OC chairman, tried to brazen it out at first but soon wickets started falling. Documents surfaced to show how huge sums were being siphoned off to an UK-based company. Kalmadi justified it by flaunting an official document that turned out to be doctored and the first wicket fell—Sanjay Mahindroo, OC’s deputy DG, resigned and disappeared. Then OC treasurer Anil Khanna resigned after it was revealed that his son’s firm had got the contract to lay synthetic tennis turfs. Two other senior officials, T S Darbari and M Jeychandran, were suspended for financial irregularities.
Then came the shocking revelations about hiring sports equipments and accessories at prices higher than their actual cost. Though this forced the OC to go for outright purchase of sports equipments, more shocking details were waiting. All the financial deals had actually been cleared by an apex body that included top bureaucrats of the country—M Ramachandran (secretary, urban development), Sindhushree Khullar (secretary, sports and youth affairs), Sanjiv Kumar Mittal, (additional secretary, finance) and Rahul Bhatnagar (joint secretary, sports and youth affairs). And none of them raised an eyebrow at any point!
More scams followed. The OC had contracted an Australian sports marketing firm to find sponsors for the Games. The firm’s own contribution was very little as most of the sponsorship came from our own PSUs, but as per the contract, it was to get 15 to 23 percent commission on all of it. The OC had also committed to give another 5 percent of its revenue to the Indian Olympic Association that Kalmadi heads, purely as a charity. Both had to be scrapped by the OC later because of public outcry.
As for our loudmouth MP Mani Shankar Aiyar, who has been the most vocal critic of the Games, it turns out that he played a major role as the sports minister between 2006 and 2008 in blocking most of the work-related proposals, leading to delay and cost overrun to the tune of at least Rs 1,710 crore. This was revealed by the sports ministry officials!
Amidst all these hullabaloo, Kalmadi, the man responsible for much of the mess, remains unfazed. He has even ordered an inquiry to find out the guilty! But our appeal to him is: Please Go. The Games can’t be a bigger fiasco without you. And since you can’t be sacked, the OC being a registered society, you would serve the Games and the country best by quitting the scene now!
If the Commonwealth Games are about national prestige, will we be left with much of it?
Each passing day brings out more embarrassing details about the Commonwealth Games’ preparations, esta-blishing clearly how it is more about a brazen loot of public money and gross incompetence/collusion of a whole set of powerful people—politicians, bureaucrats and sports managers—than anything to do with our sporting prowess.
To begin with, the cost overrun has been colossal—from Rs 1,899 crore at the time of bidding in 2003 to Rs 35,000 crore. Yet, even the basic infrastructure—stadiums, living quarters of players, practice grounds, approach roads to venues and beautification drive in the city—is not in place. The Games’ organising committee (OC) seems busier explaining various scams than in preparing for the competition.
Surprisingly, the first one to blow the whistle was a near-dysfunctional Central Vigilance Commission. It made telling comments: “ineligible agencies were awarded work”; “almost all organisations executing works for the Games (MCD, PWD, DDA, NDMC, CPWD, RITES) considered inadmissible factors to jack-up price”; price bids were “tampered” with after being opened and poor quality of works certified as good. Sitaram Yechuri, a CPM member of parliament, provided more damning evidence when he quoted official records to show how the “renovation” work on stadiums was several times costlier than building new ones—Rs 961 crore for the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Rs 669 crore for the India Gandhi Indoor Stadium, Rs 262 crore for the Dhyan Chand Hockey Stadium and so on. Contrast this with a state-of-art stadium built in Nagpur for Rs 84 crore.
Suresh Kalmadi, OC chairman, tried to brazen it out at first but soon wickets started falling. Documents surfaced to show how huge sums were being siphoned off to an UK-based company. Kalmadi justified it by flaunting an official document that turned out to be doctored and the first wicket fell—Sanjay Mahindroo, OC’s deputy DG, resigned and disappeared. Then OC treasurer Anil Khanna resigned after it was revealed that his son’s firm had got the contract to lay synthetic tennis turfs. Two other senior officials, T S Darbari and M Jeychandran, were suspended for financial irregularities.
Then came the shocking revelations about hiring sports equipments and accessories at prices higher than their actual cost. Though this forced the OC to go for outright purchase of sports equipments, more shocking details were waiting. All the financial deals had actually been cleared by an apex body that included top bureaucrats of the country—M Ramachandran (secretary, urban development), Sindhushree Khullar (secretary, sports and youth affairs), Sanjiv Kumar Mittal, (additional secretary, finance) and Rahul Bhatnagar (joint secretary, sports and youth affairs). And none of them raised an eyebrow at any point!
More scams followed. The OC had contracted an Australian sports marketing firm to find sponsors for the Games. The firm’s own contribution was very little as most of the sponsorship came from our own PSUs, but as per the contract, it was to get 15 to 23 percent commission on all of it. The OC had also committed to give another 5 percent of its revenue to the Indian Olympic Association that Kalmadi heads, purely as a charity. Both had to be scrapped by the OC later because of public outcry.
As for our loudmouth MP Mani Shankar Aiyar, who has been the most vocal critic of the Games, it turns out that he played a major role as the sports minister between 2006 and 2008 in blocking most of the work-related proposals, leading to delay and cost overrun to the tune of at least Rs 1,710 crore. This was revealed by the sports ministry officials!
Amidst all these hullabaloo, Kalmadi, the man responsible for much of the mess, remains unfazed. He has even ordered an inquiry to find out the guilty! But our appeal to him is: Please Go. The Games can’t be a bigger fiasco without you. And since you can’t be sacked, the OC being a registered society, you would serve the Games and the country best by quitting the scene now!
“Planning Commission will need to refurbish its tools to foresee into a much more dynamic world, to offer change”
Governance Now, Aug 16-31
The Planning Commission is in the process of reinventing itself. More than making five-year plans and allocating resources, it seeks to transform itself into what is being described as the Systems Reforms Commission—a strategic thinking group that will look ahead and think ahead, sense the emerging challenges and the opportunities and accordingly, devise appropriate responses for the government. Arun Maira, who has had a distinguishing career in the corporate world and headed the Boston Consulting Group until 2008, has been entrusted with this task. A Planning Commission member since July 2009, Maira shares his vision with Prasanna Mohanty. Edited excerpts from the interview:
Why does the Planning Commission need a revamp?
From time to time you should look at an institution. The Planning Commission had a new set of members, a new commission, and so they said “Why don’t we reflect on what would be required to make the Planning Commission more effective in the current environment?”
Any particular drawback or reason you felt the plan panel wasn’t responding to the current environment?
Well, the environment has changed so much in the country and the world. Sixty years ago the country was more centrally managed. Now there is much more devolution of power to the states and further devolution within the states. Also, the private sector has a much larger role in the country.
In all large entities, whether a corporation or a country, we need to foresee what may happen and make changes within to respond to that.
Previously, you could make many more things happen by the money you put in. Now it is not only the money that the central government puts in but also what the private sector and the states do.
Making things happen has changed, the need to have foresight hasn’t. In fact, it has increased. The world has become much more dynamic because of interconnection, globalisation and speed. The Planning Commission would need to refurbish its tools, its processes to be able to foresee into a much more dynamic world, offer change and also change its ability to communicate with people.
The Planning Commission is often criticised for not monitoring its projects that could have helped in fine-tuning, removing bottlenecks.
Many people ask the Planning Commission, “Why don’t you understand the details of what’s happening on the ground.” I say, routinely, no. Because that is the job of the state. And going further, if you have given it to a local body beneath the state level, then the local body should be doing it.
Then you are empowering people and making them responsible.
It has also been pointed out that there is a disconnect between the plan and non-plan parts of the government expenditure.
In a corporation, the capital budget is one thing and is separate, and the revenue budget is different. There is a reason for it.
The capital side of things will produce returns over a longer period of time. You need to raise lumpy money allocated against a lumpy project. The revenue side is: people are paying you for your products and services and what you spend on salaries and to deliver products and services.
This is good management actually. In other words, what we have is good management. Therefore, I think when people criticise they don’t apply themselves.
That comes from the Finance Commissions.
You can intellectually say that. I am talking from the point of management. In terms of separating two things, I see no problem. However, if people are not maintaining assets in this country properly because they say “I don’t have money”, then the Finance Commission says that the Planning Commission must foresee and provide for it.
What it means is you have to pass on more money from the revenue accounts to the Planning Commission for revenue purposes because maintenance is a revenue activity. This becomes a problem… The problem arises because there is no maintenance culture in this country. People put up things and don’t care about it afterwards – whether it is a road, a building or any electrical facility.
You are believed to have worked out a revamp plan for the Planning Commission.
We consulted with the stakeholders outside the Planning Commission to ask them what it should do more effectively. In that regard we came to know that we’ve got to be able to persuade a system that we don’t control directly – because we don’t fund everything in the system – to make things happen.
Number one, we should have the foresight, the ability to see further ahead on behalf of the whole system, like navigators with a radar; and then pass on the signals to the pilots, who are the executive.
To do that we would work with people outside – even those outside India – who are in various fields, watching trends and giving signals about the changes that are under way. Working with them one can put a composite picture about what the world may look like.
What one is sensing is then converted into a scenario and made available to the pilots so that they can take appropriate action.
Number two, as we begin to see opportunities and the new challenges emerging – water crisis or unemployment, for example – we can prepare conditions so that there is no crisis. Three or four such big challenges can be located beforehand and then a variety of people can work together to see how to address those challenges. That’s what the white papers are all about—give out thoughts and ideas that people can then use to take action accordingly.
Now, we’ve got to persuade a variety of people about the scenario in the language that they understand so that they are able to take appropriate action.
So these are the three critical functions that the Planning Commission should perform effectively.
Will the Planning Commission then resemble the National Advisory Council or you see it differently?
I see it differently. In case of the NAC, it doesn’t have the wherewithal of the Planning Commission. It is a specialised agency looking into the social side and is going deeper. Similarly, there are other people working on the security side. That’s also a supplement.
So, there are specialised agencies looking into their areas of specialties. The one place where all such things are collated is the Planning Commission.
Will the plan panel continue to make five-year plans or allocate money after the revamp?
That will go on. What the Planning Commission does adequately will go on. We are talking about the additionalities, the changes. What the Planning Commission needs to do differently are the three functions I mentioned.
Accountability of the Planning Commission has always been an issue. It is said the National Development Council approves its plan without any critical analysis.
We are in a much more open system, a system in which there are many semi-independent or independent agencies like the states which take their own action and don’t report to each other or to the centre. Nor can they be asked to do things differently. So when you talk of approving a plan, by their listening to it (at the NDC) the function is served.
As I said, our idea in the Planning Commission has to be to inform these people; the good things to do and the changes that are going to happen. They should get influenced by this and do things they then feel like doing. We can’t insist that they do what is indicated in the plan.
If we put up a plan it doesn’t mean automatically everything in the plan is in an executive form. You say it, then devise a scheme, you sell the scheme, you allocate money for it and so it goes on.
For example, you come to an item, JNNURM, which is included in the plan in one way, but then it is developed and debated with the states and if then, at the NDC, they say that this item for which the money will be allocated centrally is okay, that is enough. They are endorsing as much they should be, at the time. They can’t endorse it anymore because details would be worked out through another process, again in consultation.
But it is also about giving power to the local bodies, which have become just implementing agencies even though they have the power to plan for themselves.
But that is what the Planning Commission is saying now for the PESA [Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act] or the 73rd and 74th amendments which require that the local bodies make their plans. That is the right way to do things.
In a vast and diverse country, the only way you can get a sensible plan is when people make local plans. You can’t, sitting in the centre, know what is good for all the different parts. And once the local plan is made, the local bodies are made accountable for its implementation. But that’s not happening. People are not allowed to make their plan.
What is the Planning Commission’s role then?
It is to induce change in the system…the three things I mentioned. When the prime minister used the term “systems reforms commission”, it is not a budgeting commission any more. That’s the contrast. Many people see it is a budgeting commission. No, no, we are the “Systems Reforms Commission” which induces change in the system such that good things and right things happen. And one of the big changes in the system that has to happen is much more local empowerment and then creation of conditions around the local bodies so that they can function and be effective.
Now most of the investments are coming from the private sector or in the form of PPP. What kind of adjustments the Planning Commission needs to make?
It is the Planning Commission’s idea to have the PPP. It is part of the systems reforms. The Planning Commission has been saying: Look, we need much more money to make things happen. We are also in such a situation that we need the private sector to have a larger role. That’s the Planning Commission’s advocacy.
Does it limit the Planning Commission’s budgeting function?
Of course, and we should. I would be very happy if the Planning Commission didn’t have to give money. If the country was working, money was being raised by the states and the private sector and they were spending and the good things were happening in the country, it is perfect! n
The Planning Commission is in the process of reinventing itself. More than making five-year plans and allocating resources, it seeks to transform itself into what is being described as the Systems Reforms Commission—a strategic thinking group that will look ahead and think ahead, sense the emerging challenges and the opportunities and accordingly, devise appropriate responses for the government. Arun Maira, who has had a distinguishing career in the corporate world and headed the Boston Consulting Group until 2008, has been entrusted with this task. A Planning Commission member since July 2009, Maira shares his vision with Prasanna Mohanty. Edited excerpts from the interview:
Why does the Planning Commission need a revamp?
From time to time you should look at an institution. The Planning Commission had a new set of members, a new commission, and so they said “Why don’t we reflect on what would be required to make the Planning Commission more effective in the current environment?”
Any particular drawback or reason you felt the plan panel wasn’t responding to the current environment?
Well, the environment has changed so much in the country and the world. Sixty years ago the country was more centrally managed. Now there is much more devolution of power to the states and further devolution within the states. Also, the private sector has a much larger role in the country.
In all large entities, whether a corporation or a country, we need to foresee what may happen and make changes within to respond to that.
Previously, you could make many more things happen by the money you put in. Now it is not only the money that the central government puts in but also what the private sector and the states do.
Making things happen has changed, the need to have foresight hasn’t. In fact, it has increased. The world has become much more dynamic because of interconnection, globalisation and speed. The Planning Commission would need to refurbish its tools, its processes to be able to foresee into a much more dynamic world, offer change and also change its ability to communicate with people.
The Planning Commission is often criticised for not monitoring its projects that could have helped in fine-tuning, removing bottlenecks.
Many people ask the Planning Commission, “Why don’t you understand the details of what’s happening on the ground.” I say, routinely, no. Because that is the job of the state. And going further, if you have given it to a local body beneath the state level, then the local body should be doing it.
Then you are empowering people and making them responsible.
It has also been pointed out that there is a disconnect between the plan and non-plan parts of the government expenditure.
In a corporation, the capital budget is one thing and is separate, and the revenue budget is different. There is a reason for it.
The capital side of things will produce returns over a longer period of time. You need to raise lumpy money allocated against a lumpy project. The revenue side is: people are paying you for your products and services and what you spend on salaries and to deliver products and services.
This is good management actually. In other words, what we have is good management. Therefore, I think when people criticise they don’t apply themselves.
That comes from the Finance Commissions.
You can intellectually say that. I am talking from the point of management. In terms of separating two things, I see no problem. However, if people are not maintaining assets in this country properly because they say “I don’t have money”, then the Finance Commission says that the Planning Commission must foresee and provide for it.
What it means is you have to pass on more money from the revenue accounts to the Planning Commission for revenue purposes because maintenance is a revenue activity. This becomes a problem… The problem arises because there is no maintenance culture in this country. People put up things and don’t care about it afterwards – whether it is a road, a building or any electrical facility.
You are believed to have worked out a revamp plan for the Planning Commission.
We consulted with the stakeholders outside the Planning Commission to ask them what it should do more effectively. In that regard we came to know that we’ve got to be able to persuade a system that we don’t control directly – because we don’t fund everything in the system – to make things happen.
Number one, we should have the foresight, the ability to see further ahead on behalf of the whole system, like navigators with a radar; and then pass on the signals to the pilots, who are the executive.
To do that we would work with people outside – even those outside India – who are in various fields, watching trends and giving signals about the changes that are under way. Working with them one can put a composite picture about what the world may look like.
What one is sensing is then converted into a scenario and made available to the pilots so that they can take appropriate action.
Number two, as we begin to see opportunities and the new challenges emerging – water crisis or unemployment, for example – we can prepare conditions so that there is no crisis. Three or four such big challenges can be located beforehand and then a variety of people can work together to see how to address those challenges. That’s what the white papers are all about—give out thoughts and ideas that people can then use to take action accordingly.
Now, we’ve got to persuade a variety of people about the scenario in the language that they understand so that they are able to take appropriate action.
So these are the three critical functions that the Planning Commission should perform effectively.
Will the Planning Commission then resemble the National Advisory Council or you see it differently?
I see it differently. In case of the NAC, it doesn’t have the wherewithal of the Planning Commission. It is a specialised agency looking into the social side and is going deeper. Similarly, there are other people working on the security side. That’s also a supplement.
So, there are specialised agencies looking into their areas of specialties. The one place where all such things are collated is the Planning Commission.
Will the plan panel continue to make five-year plans or allocate money after the revamp?
That will go on. What the Planning Commission does adequately will go on. We are talking about the additionalities, the changes. What the Planning Commission needs to do differently are the three functions I mentioned.
Accountability of the Planning Commission has always been an issue. It is said the National Development Council approves its plan without any critical analysis.
We are in a much more open system, a system in which there are many semi-independent or independent agencies like the states which take their own action and don’t report to each other or to the centre. Nor can they be asked to do things differently. So when you talk of approving a plan, by their listening to it (at the NDC) the function is served.
As I said, our idea in the Planning Commission has to be to inform these people; the good things to do and the changes that are going to happen. They should get influenced by this and do things they then feel like doing. We can’t insist that they do what is indicated in the plan.
If we put up a plan it doesn’t mean automatically everything in the plan is in an executive form. You say it, then devise a scheme, you sell the scheme, you allocate money for it and so it goes on.
For example, you come to an item, JNNURM, which is included in the plan in one way, but then it is developed and debated with the states and if then, at the NDC, they say that this item for which the money will be allocated centrally is okay, that is enough. They are endorsing as much they should be, at the time. They can’t endorse it anymore because details would be worked out through another process, again in consultation.
But it is also about giving power to the local bodies, which have become just implementing agencies even though they have the power to plan for themselves.
But that is what the Planning Commission is saying now for the PESA [Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act] or the 73rd and 74th amendments which require that the local bodies make their plans. That is the right way to do things.
In a vast and diverse country, the only way you can get a sensible plan is when people make local plans. You can’t, sitting in the centre, know what is good for all the different parts. And once the local plan is made, the local bodies are made accountable for its implementation. But that’s not happening. People are not allowed to make their plan.
What is the Planning Commission’s role then?
It is to induce change in the system…the three things I mentioned. When the prime minister used the term “systems reforms commission”, it is not a budgeting commission any more. That’s the contrast. Many people see it is a budgeting commission. No, no, we are the “Systems Reforms Commission” which induces change in the system such that good things and right things happen. And one of the big changes in the system that has to happen is much more local empowerment and then creation of conditions around the local bodies so that they can function and be effective.
Now most of the investments are coming from the private sector or in the form of PPP. What kind of adjustments the Planning Commission needs to make?
It is the Planning Commission’s idea to have the PPP. It is part of the systems reforms. The Planning Commission has been saying: Look, we need much more money to make things happen. We are also in such a situation that we need the private sector to have a larger role. That’s the Planning Commission’s advocacy.
Does it limit the Planning Commission’s budgeting function?
Of course, and we should. I would be very happy if the Planning Commission didn’t have to give money. If the country was working, money was being raised by the states and the private sector and they were spending and the good things were happening in the country, it is perfect! n
Thursday, August 5, 2010
POSCO’s land acquisition in Orissa is illegal
governancenow.com
July 28 2010
South Korean company has started paying compensation to farmers
South Korean steel major, POSCO, has begun acquiring land for its Rs 54,000 crore plant in Orissa in gross violation of law.
Firstly, its MoU with the Orissa government lapsed on June 22 this year and hence, the project has no legal status.
Secondly, since the state government has not complied with the Forest Rights Act and completed the process of granting forest rights to the forest dwellers (forest land accounts for bulk of the acquisition—3,000 acre of 4,004 acre to be acquired), it is completely illegal to acquire forest land.
Third, the central government has not given forest and environment clearance to the project yet.
In fact, the environment and forests ministry has withheld its clearance to the POSCO project on the ground that the Forest Rights Act has not been complied with. It recently sent former bureaucrat N C Saxena to do a reality check at the project site. Saxena’s report is awaited.
POSCO’s trouble goes beyond this. The Orissa High Court stayed the government’s attempt to give mining lease a couple of weeks ago saying that the laid down procure had not been followed in recommending its case. So, POSCO doesn’t have a iron ore mining lease to set up its plant.
In such circumstances, it defies logic for the state government to allow POSCO to acquire land, which it began by giving compensation to two villagers in Gadakujanga panchayat in Jagatsinghpur district yesterday (Tuesday).
POSCO has announced a compensation package of Rs 400 crore to acquire 4,004 acre of land in three gram panchayats of Jagatsinghpur—Dhinkia, Nuagaon and Gadakujanga. Of this, Rs 100 crore is meant for land cost, Rs 100 crore for rehabilitation and Rs 200 crore for compensation to encroachers on government land.
July 28 2010
South Korean company has started paying compensation to farmers
South Korean steel major, POSCO, has begun acquiring land for its Rs 54,000 crore plant in Orissa in gross violation of law.
Firstly, its MoU with the Orissa government lapsed on June 22 this year and hence, the project has no legal status.
Secondly, since the state government has not complied with the Forest Rights Act and completed the process of granting forest rights to the forest dwellers (forest land accounts for bulk of the acquisition—3,000 acre of 4,004 acre to be acquired), it is completely illegal to acquire forest land.
Third, the central government has not given forest and environment clearance to the project yet.
In fact, the environment and forests ministry has withheld its clearance to the POSCO project on the ground that the Forest Rights Act has not been complied with. It recently sent former bureaucrat N C Saxena to do a reality check at the project site. Saxena’s report is awaited.
POSCO’s trouble goes beyond this. The Orissa High Court stayed the government’s attempt to give mining lease a couple of weeks ago saying that the laid down procure had not been followed in recommending its case. So, POSCO doesn’t have a iron ore mining lease to set up its plant.
In such circumstances, it defies logic for the state government to allow POSCO to acquire land, which it began by giving compensation to two villagers in Gadakujanga panchayat in Jagatsinghpur district yesterday (Tuesday).
POSCO has announced a compensation package of Rs 400 crore to acquire 4,004 acre of land in three gram panchayats of Jagatsinghpur—Dhinkia, Nuagaon and Gadakujanga. Of this, Rs 100 crore is meant for land cost, Rs 100 crore for rehabilitation and Rs 200 crore for compensation to encroachers on government land.
Is Kasab alive a better message to terrorists than Kasab dead?
governancenow.com, may 7, 2010
Now that Ajmal Kasab has been sentenced to death two very divergent views are being put out. One that insists he must be hanged without delay, by fast tracking the rest of the appeals process and even jumping the long queue of convicts awaiting the noose. That they say will be a fitting reply to the terrorists and their sponsors. The other view says that keeping Kasab alive by condemning him to a life in prison till death is a far better way of sending that message. The Economic Times has strongly advocated this line in a front page comment. Do you agree Kasab alive and rotting in prison for a life time is a better message than Kasab dead?
Now that Ajmal Kasab has been sentenced to death two very divergent views are being put out. One that insists he must be hanged without delay, by fast tracking the rest of the appeals process and even jumping the long queue of convicts awaiting the noose. That they say will be a fitting reply to the terrorists and their sponsors. The other view says that keeping Kasab alive by condemning him to a life in prison till death is a far better way of sending that message. The Economic Times has strongly advocated this line in a front page comment. Do you agree Kasab alive and rotting in prison for a life time is a better message than Kasab dead?
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Go Kalmadi Go. Games can’t be a bigger fiasco without you.
governancenow.com, aug 3
If CWG flops in the process, so be it! National pride can’t permit brazen loot of public money and gross incompetence
With each passing day, the Commonwealth Games’ preparations are turning out to be a big embarrassment. Less than two months to go, the infrastructure – stadiums, living quarters of the players and practice grounds – is not in place. All norms have been violated to allow contractors to carry out substandard jobs but make money by the piles. Sports equipments and accessories have been “hired” for prices several times higher than the actual cost. The entire capital is dug up. First rains have already exposed what a shoddy job the renovation work on our stadiums has been. And the cost of the Games has overrun several times the estimate – from less than Rs 2,000 crore to Rs 35,000 crore at the last count.
To top it all, the brazenness of Suresh Kalmadi, the Organising Committee chairman and the man behind the show, knows no bounds. The other day he waved a document to justify siphoning of a huge sum of money to a dubious UK-based firm and now it turns out that the document was doctored! It is difficult to imagine Kalmadi didn’t know, even though he himself didn’t doctor the document, that the Indian High Commission’s letter couldn’t have been genuine. It didn’t have a list of high commission-approved firms, but just one name and was forwarded from the private email id of a junior staff. Worse, a substantial part of payment went to a subsidiary of this firm which has since then filed for bankruptcy!
But none of these are enough to shame Kalmadi. Why, he wouldn’t even sack his key men found to have been involved in financial irregularities and whose ouster the sports ministry had sought by writing to him twice. One of them, Dr Sanjay Mahindroo, it now transpires, had asked the UK-based firm to inflate the bills! Kalmadi's answer so far has been that he will set up inquiries to find out who are guilty.
No sir, don't try to find out who is guilty. Others can do that job just as well, if not better. You as chairman of the Games' Organising Committee are responsible for the big fiasco it has turned out to be.
And since you can't be sacked because you, as president of the Indian Olympic Association (which was given the job of holding the CWG by the Commonwealth Games Federation), have appointed yourself as chairman of the Organising Committee, please go!
We know, there could be some minor inconveniences, but certainly the situation can’t get any worse without you.
If CWG flops in the process, so be it! National pride can’t permit brazen loot of public money and gross incompetence
With each passing day, the Commonwealth Games’ preparations are turning out to be a big embarrassment. Less than two months to go, the infrastructure – stadiums, living quarters of the players and practice grounds – is not in place. All norms have been violated to allow contractors to carry out substandard jobs but make money by the piles. Sports equipments and accessories have been “hired” for prices several times higher than the actual cost. The entire capital is dug up. First rains have already exposed what a shoddy job the renovation work on our stadiums has been. And the cost of the Games has overrun several times the estimate – from less than Rs 2,000 crore to Rs 35,000 crore at the last count.
To top it all, the brazenness of Suresh Kalmadi, the Organising Committee chairman and the man behind the show, knows no bounds. The other day he waved a document to justify siphoning of a huge sum of money to a dubious UK-based firm and now it turns out that the document was doctored! It is difficult to imagine Kalmadi didn’t know, even though he himself didn’t doctor the document, that the Indian High Commission’s letter couldn’t have been genuine. It didn’t have a list of high commission-approved firms, but just one name and was forwarded from the private email id of a junior staff. Worse, a substantial part of payment went to a subsidiary of this firm which has since then filed for bankruptcy!
But none of these are enough to shame Kalmadi. Why, he wouldn’t even sack his key men found to have been involved in financial irregularities and whose ouster the sports ministry had sought by writing to him twice. One of them, Dr Sanjay Mahindroo, it now transpires, had asked the UK-based firm to inflate the bills! Kalmadi's answer so far has been that he will set up inquiries to find out who are guilty.
No sir, don't try to find out who is guilty. Others can do that job just as well, if not better. You as chairman of the Games' Organising Committee are responsible for the big fiasco it has turned out to be.
And since you can't be sacked because you, as president of the Indian Olympic Association (which was given the job of holding the CWG by the Commonwealth Games Federation), have appointed yourself as chairman of the Organising Committee, please go!
We know, there could be some minor inconveniences, but certainly the situation can’t get any worse without you.
Right to food for one-fourth of India!
governance now mag, aug 1-15
Sonia’s dream legislation is now just an improved PDS scheme.
This is what the Congress manifesto of 2009 said about the right to food: “The Indian National Congress pledges to enact a Right to Food law that guarantees access to sufficient food for all people, particularly the most vulnerable sections of society.” This then found mention in president Pratibha Patil’s address to the joint session of parliament.
One year down the line, that promise stands substantially diluted.
The high-profile National Advisory Council headed by all-powerful Congress president Sonia Gandhi decided on July 14 that this right will be restricted to only one-fourth of the “most disadvantaged districts or blocks” who will get 35 kg of food grains a month at Rs 3 a kg--an improvement from 25 kg at Rs 3 a kg that the Congress manifesto had promised.
In rest of the country, everyone will be entitled to 25 kg of grain and the socially vulnerable groups will get 35 kg at Rs 3 a kg, until 35 kg entitlement is universalised on some future date.
But the key lies in another decision taken that day which said, “There would also be a category that would be excluded based on transparent and verifiable criteria”. Now how many people would be excluded and on what criteria has not been decided yet. There are apprehensions that this exclusion would extend to the one-fourth districts/blocks which will have universal entitlement.
That is because the NAC has succumbed to the pressures from the ministries of finance, consumer affairs, food and public distribution, planning commission and the eGoM headed by Pranab Mukherjee—all involved in working out the right to food law.
Procurement, not production
These ministries and the planning commission in particular made a big hue and cry over the “availability” of food --which was taken to be 50-55 million tonnes--to restrict the amount of food grains to be made available under the right to food law. Planning commission also raised several other questions (see the box in the previous page). It simply didn’t occur to anyone that the “availability” figure is actually the amount of annual “procurement” of food grains, and not “production” of food grains. Our production is at least four times more than procurement--it was 234.47 million tonnes last year and is expected to be a bit lower at 218.20 million tonnes this year.
Why did NAC (and all others) rely on “procurement” rather than “production” and made it seem that the grain availability is not sufficient for universal entitlement?
Abhijit Sen, a key planning commission member involved with the exercise (though not in NAC’s deliberations) says: “At the moment, the assumption everyone is working with is our procurement of food grains is 50 to 55 million tonnes”. But why so? He explains: Expanding procurement has its consequences--a higher minimum support price assuming that all available grain is procured and need to pay more to get more), expansion of procurement centres and godowns and more people to manage all these; all of which means more money.
The issue of providing “nutrition” rather than just rice and wheat, also remains unaddressed. There is no mention of coarse grains popular with the poor, millets, pulses, oil and vegitables, let alone meat or fish.
NAC, though, says “comprehensive nutrition support schemes” will be initiated for vulnerable groups like, infants, pre-school children, school children, adolescent girls, pregnant women, street-children, homless, the aged and infirm, differentially-abled, those living with leprosy, TB and HIV/AIDS etc--alongwith community kitchens across the country.
But does it not reduce the right to food law to an improved version of the Antyodaya Anna Yojna?
No right in right to food
The right to food has to be, by definition, universal and is recognized as such by the Supreme Court (in the Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame in 1990). It is also inherent in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 47 says “the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people..”)
Ironically, there is no “right” in the right to food law being prepared by the NAC. It is called the “National Food Security Bill”. Contrast this with the right to forest (The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006) or the right to education (Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009.
While one hopes that the NAC will consider these issues in its subsequent deliberations, it must keep in mind that a piecemeal approach won’t help. Food security calls for a holistic approach that will take care of food production, nutritional needs of the malnourished country and its distribution.
Sonia’s dream legislation is now just an improved PDS scheme.
This is what the Congress manifesto of 2009 said about the right to food: “The Indian National Congress pledges to enact a Right to Food law that guarantees access to sufficient food for all people, particularly the most vulnerable sections of society.” This then found mention in president Pratibha Patil’s address to the joint session of parliament.
One year down the line, that promise stands substantially diluted.
The high-profile National Advisory Council headed by all-powerful Congress president Sonia Gandhi decided on July 14 that this right will be restricted to only one-fourth of the “most disadvantaged districts or blocks” who will get 35 kg of food grains a month at Rs 3 a kg--an improvement from 25 kg at Rs 3 a kg that the Congress manifesto had promised.
In rest of the country, everyone will be entitled to 25 kg of grain and the socially vulnerable groups will get 35 kg at Rs 3 a kg, until 35 kg entitlement is universalised on some future date.
But the key lies in another decision taken that day which said, “There would also be a category that would be excluded based on transparent and verifiable criteria”. Now how many people would be excluded and on what criteria has not been decided yet. There are apprehensions that this exclusion would extend to the one-fourth districts/blocks which will have universal entitlement.
That is because the NAC has succumbed to the pressures from the ministries of finance, consumer affairs, food and public distribution, planning commission and the eGoM headed by Pranab Mukherjee—all involved in working out the right to food law.
Procurement, not production
These ministries and the planning commission in particular made a big hue and cry over the “availability” of food --which was taken to be 50-55 million tonnes--to restrict the amount of food grains to be made available under the right to food law. Planning commission also raised several other questions (see the box in the previous page). It simply didn’t occur to anyone that the “availability” figure is actually the amount of annual “procurement” of food grains, and not “production” of food grains. Our production is at least four times more than procurement--it was 234.47 million tonnes last year and is expected to be a bit lower at 218.20 million tonnes this year.
Why did NAC (and all others) rely on “procurement” rather than “production” and made it seem that the grain availability is not sufficient for universal entitlement?
Abhijit Sen, a key planning commission member involved with the exercise (though not in NAC’s deliberations) says: “At the moment, the assumption everyone is working with is our procurement of food grains is 50 to 55 million tonnes”. But why so? He explains: Expanding procurement has its consequences--a higher minimum support price assuming that all available grain is procured and need to pay more to get more), expansion of procurement centres and godowns and more people to manage all these; all of which means more money.
The issue of providing “nutrition” rather than just rice and wheat, also remains unaddressed. There is no mention of coarse grains popular with the poor, millets, pulses, oil and vegitables, let alone meat or fish.
NAC, though, says “comprehensive nutrition support schemes” will be initiated for vulnerable groups like, infants, pre-school children, school children, adolescent girls, pregnant women, street-children, homless, the aged and infirm, differentially-abled, those living with leprosy, TB and HIV/AIDS etc--alongwith community kitchens across the country.
But does it not reduce the right to food law to an improved version of the Antyodaya Anna Yojna?
No right in right to food
The right to food has to be, by definition, universal and is recognized as such by the Supreme Court (in the Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame in 1990). It is also inherent in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 47 says “the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people..”)
Ironically, there is no “right” in the right to food law being prepared by the NAC. It is called the “National Food Security Bill”. Contrast this with the right to forest (The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006) or the right to education (Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009.
While one hopes that the NAC will consider these issues in its subsequent deliberations, it must keep in mind that a piecemeal approach won’t help. Food security calls for a holistic approach that will take care of food production, nutritional needs of the malnourished country and its distribution.
Is the government sabotaging whistleblowers’ movement?
governancenow mag, Aug 1-15
A law to protect them has been pending ever since Satyendra Dube was killed in Patna in 2003
RTI activist Amit Jethwa’s cold-blooded murder outside the Gujarat high court, a high-security zone, on July 20 is the latest in a series of such killings in recent times. There have been at least three others who lost their lives this year alone for daring to expose corruption involving the high and mighty. In the case of Jethwa, a BJP member of parliament has been named by the family of the deceased, but the suspect has not been questioned so far, let alone be arrested. The reluctance on the part of the police is understandable; they hadn’t bothered to act or provide security to the activist when he complained of the threat to his life while trying to expose illegal mining in the Gir forest area. Much in the similar way Satish Shetty, another RTI activist, lost his life in January this year when he was lynched in broad daylight on the outskirts of Pune, where he lived. Shetty had proved troublesome for the land sharks and their political patrons. Two more RTI activists Shashidhar Mishra of Bihar and Datta Patil of Maharashtra were eliminated this year in the months of February and May, respectively.
But have you heard any politician or a minister, either from the centre or the states where these incidents happened, condemning these killings or promising swift action? No. If that doesn’t move you, here is another shocker. Former Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti recently wrote a letter to Congress president and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi to tell her how every whistleblower who approached the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the apex institution entrusted with the task of fighting corruption, came to grief! Having failed to move CVC, Justice Lahoti tells Gandhi in his letter: “Let me take but one example. It would be recalled that after the unfortunate murder of Satyendra Dubey, while working in the NHAI, CVC issued a resolution extending protection to whistleblowers to save them from violent consequences. Information available show that after the issue of this resolution, every whistleblower who approached CVC came to grief, while culprits remain, by and large, unharmed to this day.” Justice Lahoti runs a non-government agency, India Rejuvenation Initiative, to help the whistleblowers.
The resolution Justice Lahoti refers to is the “Government of India Resolution on Public Interest Disclosures and Protection of Informers” issued in 2004 by the CVC after IITian Satyendra Dube was eliminated in Patna in 2003 following his letter to the Prime Minister’s Office complaining about corruption in national highway projects. The central government had, at the time, promised to bring in a law also to protect the whistleblowers. It was never done. When a private member’s bill on the subject was moved in Rajya Sabha in 2006, the member was persuaded to withdraw it on the promise that the government would soon honour its promise. The Law Commission too released a draft bill around that time, which was, of course, dismissed by the RTI activists and other civil society groups as weak and silent on protection or compensation to be provided to the whistleblowers. Finally, after the ghastly murder of Satish Shetty in January this year it seemed the government was waking up from its slumber when a minister, Prithviraj Chavan, disclosed in February that The Public Disclosure and Protection of Informers Bill was being finalized by an empowered group of ministers headed by defence minister A K Antony. Curiously, the proposed bill, which is supposed to be ready and may be introduced in the monsoon session of parliament, is not available in public domain. Worse, a civil society activist has been trying hard for several months to get access to this draft bill but neither the government nor the Central Information Commission has so far come to his help.
Does the government really want to help people fight corruption? Our experience shows that the trail in big-ticket corruption cases often leads to the high and mighty who control the governments and every conceivable trade and industry. Transparency and probity threaten their very existence! Why the pretense then? Let it be a free for all. At least we would be saving some of our most public-spirited individuals from meeting a ghastly end.
A law to protect them has been pending ever since Satyendra Dube was killed in Patna in 2003
RTI activist Amit Jethwa’s cold-blooded murder outside the Gujarat high court, a high-security zone, on July 20 is the latest in a series of such killings in recent times. There have been at least three others who lost their lives this year alone for daring to expose corruption involving the high and mighty. In the case of Jethwa, a BJP member of parliament has been named by the family of the deceased, but the suspect has not been questioned so far, let alone be arrested. The reluctance on the part of the police is understandable; they hadn’t bothered to act or provide security to the activist when he complained of the threat to his life while trying to expose illegal mining in the Gir forest area. Much in the similar way Satish Shetty, another RTI activist, lost his life in January this year when he was lynched in broad daylight on the outskirts of Pune, where he lived. Shetty had proved troublesome for the land sharks and their political patrons. Two more RTI activists Shashidhar Mishra of Bihar and Datta Patil of Maharashtra were eliminated this year in the months of February and May, respectively.
But have you heard any politician or a minister, either from the centre or the states where these incidents happened, condemning these killings or promising swift action? No. If that doesn’t move you, here is another shocker. Former Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti recently wrote a letter to Congress president and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi to tell her how every whistleblower who approached the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the apex institution entrusted with the task of fighting corruption, came to grief! Having failed to move CVC, Justice Lahoti tells Gandhi in his letter: “Let me take but one example. It would be recalled that after the unfortunate murder of Satyendra Dubey, while working in the NHAI, CVC issued a resolution extending protection to whistleblowers to save them from violent consequences. Information available show that after the issue of this resolution, every whistleblower who approached CVC came to grief, while culprits remain, by and large, unharmed to this day.” Justice Lahoti runs a non-government agency, India Rejuvenation Initiative, to help the whistleblowers.
The resolution Justice Lahoti refers to is the “Government of India Resolution on Public Interest Disclosures and Protection of Informers” issued in 2004 by the CVC after IITian Satyendra Dube was eliminated in Patna in 2003 following his letter to the Prime Minister’s Office complaining about corruption in national highway projects. The central government had, at the time, promised to bring in a law also to protect the whistleblowers. It was never done. When a private member’s bill on the subject was moved in Rajya Sabha in 2006, the member was persuaded to withdraw it on the promise that the government would soon honour its promise. The Law Commission too released a draft bill around that time, which was, of course, dismissed by the RTI activists and other civil society groups as weak and silent on protection or compensation to be provided to the whistleblowers. Finally, after the ghastly murder of Satish Shetty in January this year it seemed the government was waking up from its slumber when a minister, Prithviraj Chavan, disclosed in February that The Public Disclosure and Protection of Informers Bill was being finalized by an empowered group of ministers headed by defence minister A K Antony. Curiously, the proposed bill, which is supposed to be ready and may be introduced in the monsoon session of parliament, is not available in public domain. Worse, a civil society activist has been trying hard for several months to get access to this draft bill but neither the government nor the Central Information Commission has so far come to his help.
Does the government really want to help people fight corruption? Our experience shows that the trail in big-ticket corruption cases often leads to the high and mighty who control the governments and every conceivable trade and industry. Transparency and probity threaten their very existence! Why the pretense then? Let it be a free for all. At least we would be saving some of our most public-spirited individuals from meeting a ghastly end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)