Governance Now, Dec 1-15, 2010
By going in for the moneybag brand of development at the cost of what people need or prudence demands, Orissa is fast turning into a basket case and is all set to replace Bihar in the ‘bimaru’ club
When you head towards Ersama block (which bore the brunt of the Supercyclone of 1999) in Jagatsinghpur, about 100 km from Orissa’s capital city of Bhubaneswar, you are immediately struck by the light green paddy fields stretched for miles on either side of the road, skirted by tall dark green trees at the far ends. The air is clean, the surroundings refreshing. Mahanga river, which has been parted at several places to mark exclusive fishing areas for the villages, gives you company some way to the cluster of villages that those tall dark trees hide in their midst. Cattle egrets and an occasional drango make their appearances to complete the picture of a calm, peaceful and pleasant rural set-up. Once there, you expect a chirpy village life waiting to greet you. Instead, you are hit by an eerie silence so conspicuous that you suddenly realise you are in a condemned zone. Several villages falling under three panchayats – Dhinkia, Gada Kujanga and Nuagaon – are living under constant fear. The government is determined to acquire 4,000 acre of their homestead and farmland for a South Korean steel company, POSCO.
What the villagers fail to understand is why the government is bent on throwing them out of their forefathers’ land and destroying their lives by giving away their land to a foreign company when, three km down south there is plenty of barren land that can be used for the same purpose. Shifting the location of POSCO’s plant will not mean much inconvenience for the company except for levelling the sandy shore of the Bay of Bengal. Of course, the government never consulted them nor responded to the suggestion about shifting the plant site.
Incidentally, they are still recovering from the Supercyclone that killed more than 8,000 in this block alone and washed away several villages. They got paltry sums between Rs 1,000 and Rs 3,500 for the houses damaged or washed away. Then came an IOC refinery (in Abhaychandpur village) for which hundreds lost their homes in 2001 but the rehabilitation site remains barren even today.
What People Need
“Given a choice, what kind of development you would like for your area?” I ask one of the villagers, Ranjan Swain of Govindpur village in Dhinkia – a 30-year-old betel vine grower who has turned a full-time anti-plant activist. Here is what he said: “I would like a cashew processing plant in our area. We produce about 200 tonne of cashew a year which is sent to Kolkata for processing. The processed product then comes back to Cuttack for sale in and outside the state. My second wish would be nurseries for fish and prawn that grow so well in salty waters of Mahanga and Jatadhar rivers and our ponds. Right now, we get the hatchlings from Hyderabad. My third wish would be export facilities for excellent ‘banarasi’ paan (betel leaf) that only we grow.” He also points out how government apathy in the past led to closure of two textile mills in the district in 1990s as a result of which the villagers stopped growing cotton altogether.
His sarpanch, Shishir Kumar Mahapatra, adds a few to the list: Roads, maintenance of a cyclone shelter built by the Maharashtra government in 2000, power connections to homes and a public health centre.
Nearly 600 km southwest of Bhubaneswar, in Kashipur block of Rayagada district, the situation is no different. Kashipur has been in news for all the wrong reasons – starvation deaths of 2001 (when many succumbed after consuming infected mango kernel) and resistance to bauxite mining and alumina plants. This is among the most picturesque places of Orissa with green hills covering the entire region, some of which carry bauxite. Some would go to the extent of comparing its natural beauty with that of Kashmir. Primitive Kondhs and Parajas live at the foothills and practice jhum cultivation because of which many of the hills are now barren. Vidhya Das of Agragamee, a non–government agency, has been working among these tribals for more than quarter of a century. I ask her the same question that I had asked Ranjan Swain.
In response, Vidhya says communication and livelihood issues bother her the most and need fixing. There are no roads in this block. Bits of tar one finds give an impression that the roads were laid 10 to 20 years ago and never been re-carpeted since. There are only two private minibuses that connect it to nearby district headquarters. Villagers walk for 5, 10, 20 even 30 km on foot every day. Some cross the hills wherever possible. As for livelihood issues, the tribals practice jhum that involves clearing up hills to grow rice, millets and oil seeds. They grow only one crop, Kharif, as there is no irrigation. Productivity is low and people let their cattle roam free for rest of the year. Vidhya would like the government to promote “settled” agriculture by helping with irrigation, watershed and land reclamation programmes. Poor marketing avenues deprive people good return on their products. This forces them to cut more trees to generate cash. Panasguda, the village that had witnessed mango kernel-related deaths in 2001, has no source of income other than selling wood though it is located one km away from the Kashipur block headquarters. The hills surrounding the village are without a tree. They now cross over to cut wood from the other side.
There are other issues. Malaria, cholera and diarrhoea claim a steady stream of lives throughout the year. The block has seven PHCs and one community PHC. According to the local block development officer (BDO), none of the PHCs has a doctor and the community PHC has two, instead of seven.
Instead of fixing these issues to improve the living conditions, the state has focused on handing over hills, villages and farmland for bauxite mining and alumina plants by coercion and allurement. Some of the anti-mining leaders have, thus, turned contractors and work for setting up Utkal Alumina’s plant and its mining of the Baphlimali hills. Thousands have been displaced on account of this. Those who continue to resist face criminal cases and are forced to stay away. Aditya Birla is coming up with another alumina plant and will mine the Sasbahumali hills. Vedanta’s original plan was to set up its alumina plant here and mine these hills but it was forced to shift to Kalahandi and seek the Niyamgiri hills. The protests may have subsided but anger and resentment simmer.
I did two more such exercises, one of which was in Kalinganagar in Jajpur district, 100-odd km northeast of Bhubaneswar and another conflict zone. People of Chandia and Gobarghati panchayats, who are Ho and Mundari settlers from Chhotanagpur plateau of Jharkhand, are facing eviction for a steel plant by the Tatas. Their leader Ravindra Nath Jarika says the land is fertile but requires irrigation for the second crop. The area needs a PHC, upper primary and high schools, teachers, doctors and NREGA work which was never taken up because these villages have been out of bound for the government officials since 2004 and witnessed a cold–blooded killing of 15 tribals by police in January 2006.
What Prudence Demands
It is quite apparent that there is a huge gap between what the people need and what the state is doing by way of so-called development and this is at the heart of conflicts in many parts of the state. A few facts about the state will make it easy to understand and find solutions to these conflicts which often turn violent.
“Orissa is an agrarian state” goes the first line of the state agriculture policy of 2008, adding that 83 percent of the farming community consists of small and marginal farmers. Latest economic survey (ES) report says though agriculture and allied sectors contribute less than 30 percent towards the state’s GDP it engages 60 percent of state’s workforce (2001 census said 70 percent). Both, however, ignore a huge and growing population of migrant workers to Andhra’s brick kilns, Surat’s textile and diamond units, to Raipur, Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and elsewhere for other menial jobs.
The state has rich forest cover (more than 37 percent) and mineral resources too, especially in the backward and tribal dominated districts. These districts grow plenty of rice, millets, fruits like mango, guava and banana, medicinal plants, bamboo, cardamom, oilseeds and so on. The mineral resources include iron ore, bauxite, coal, copper, manganese, nickel etc.
Given the spread and dependence on agriculture and forests, it would seem logical for the state to focus on these areas, except that it doesn’t. The state’s focus is only on mining and mining-related industries for the past decade and more – the kind of activity that holds special attraction for the moneybags and their brand of development. If it means displacement and destruction of thousands of lives, so be it! Any wonder that 17 of 30 districts in Orissa are Maoist-hit?
Moneybag Development
Ever since sparkling-clean Naveen Patnaik came to power in 2000, his government has signed 87 MoUs for setting up industries. Not a single of these is related to either agriculture or forest. The MoUs are primarily for steel, power and alumina plants. About 30 of these have materialised but all the big-ticket projects (that of POSCO, Tata, ArcelorMittal, Jindal) are stuck due to protests. But the protests have made no difference.
When I asked industry minister Raghunath Mohanty why not one MoU is for agro or forest-based industry, he said, “We have an open mind.” When I asked why the state took no initiative to set up such industries, he was irritated and said, “But I told you the government has an open mind and if anybody comes forward, we will welcome it.” As for why the state is bulldozing its way through by denying people forest rights (which is the case in Ersama, Kashipur, Kalinganagar and elsewhere) he was quite emphatic that “they (people seeking forest rights) have no such rights; we told this to Jairam Ramesh.”
Agriculture minister Damodar Rout concedes that the state’s priorities are wrong, after having dismissed it initially: “You are right. We don’t have a sound agro-based policy. Now we are planning to do that.” What forced his hands is damning evidence – that all agro-based industries, save for three sugar mills, have been shut or become defunct in the past one-and-half decades and the state has no plan either to revive or set up new ones, as of now.
Agriculture production has remained stagnant for years. Latest government records show except for 2001-02 and 2007-08, all other years between 1998 and 2009 saw deficit foodgrain production (see boxes). Worse, land under cultivation is shrinking (from 45 lakh hectare in 2001-02 to 44 lakh in 2007-08 as per Economic Intelligence Service report of 2010).
Former finance minister Panchanan Kanungo (between 2002 and 2004 in Naveen Patnaik’s government) presents a stark picture of a lop–sided approach. He says all of 18 textile mills, one jute mill, eight oil mills, three of seven sugar mills and one of three fertilizers plants have closed down or become defunct in the past 10-12 years. Of course, there are no forest-based industries to make use of fruits, bamboos, kewda, medicinal plants and so on.
Irrigation has shrunk. Latest ES report says “irrigation intensity” has gone down to 31 percent, from 46 percent (ES 2004-5). This is an alarming situation and makes the state more of a one-crop wonder in spite of scores of rivers, mountain streams, plenty of easily accessible groundwater and a healthy rainfall of 1,450 mm a year. The ES concludes that “lack of irrigation still remains a major stumbling block on enhancing agricultural productivity”.
In such a situation, crop insurance comes handy. In early years of his term, Naveen Patnaik made gram panchayat (GP) as the basic unit to consider for relief in case of drought/crop failure (benchmarked at 60 percent damage). This was changed a year later to make the “block” as the base unit (one block may have 12 to 25 GPs), thereby depriving a lot of farmers from drought/crop failure relief. State’s agriculture secretary UP Singh says reverting to the block as a unit is being contemplated.
Add poor seed supply (“seed replacement rate” for rice, the main crop, is only 10 percent) and fertiliser, both chemical and organic, (half the national consumption) and you stare at a desperate situation.
But that is not all. Other support systems are bad too. Kanungo says, as per the official records, of 52 lakh agriculture families in the state only 24 lakh get farm credit (15 lakh from cooperative banks and 9 lakh from other banks), thus leaving more than 50 percent at the mercy of microfinance companies and moneylenders. Even when farmers get loan, it is used mostly for sustenance. Agriculture secretary concurs: “Actual use for agriculture is very small.”
Food procurement (confined to paddy only), which the state began in 2003-04, remains erratic with frequent protests and road blockage in western districts and distress sell in southern ones because of complete lack of any marketing facility.
Kanungo says, in his assessment Orissa spends about Rs 2,500 crore every month in importing wheat, pulses, oil, milk and milk products, potato, onion, fish, eggs etc. because of the lop–sided policy of the state government.
His conclusion: “Initially, the Naveen Patnaik government put some emphasis on agriculture. But the focus shifted to mining–linked industries in the next two terms. Past mistakes are being repeated by Naveen.” Patnaik is in his third term and Kanungo refers to past CMs of Orissa, who, save for Nabakrushna Choudhury, seemingly took little interest in rural economy and agriculture.
Land distribution is another key reason for poor agriculture. As 83 percent farmers fall in small and marginal farmers and tenancy is widely prevalent, little by way of technology or input goes into farming (officially, the state’s agriculture is described as “subsistence agriculture”). The Orissa Land Reforms Act of 1960 attempted to give “land rights” to the tenants but it harmed more because, as Prof Mamata Swain, economic professor of Ravenshaw College, says, it led to tenants being thrown out even at the cost of keeping land fallow. On the other hand, Bengal’s Operation Barga, introduced in late 1970s, sought to protect “tenancy rights” and achieved remarkable success before its decline. Subsequent attempt to redistribute Bhoodan land and land in excess of ceiling failed because of poor implementation. A 2008 study by UNDP said: “The ceiling surplus operation failed to yield the desired result because of lack of actual physical possession by the beneficiary, unavailability of records of rights and poor land quality making it impossible for the beneficiaries to cultivate the land.” As for Bhoodan land, it said the land either remained undistributed or were re-occupied. A 2007 drive, My Land and My Homestead Land, too failed to ensure possession, the report said.
Look at some other related issues. The state has not added a unit of power in decades and T&D loss remains 65 percent in spite of the fact that Orissa was the first state in the country to reform transmission and distribution functions way back in 1990! Only 22 percent rural households are electrified (as per ES) and power consumption for irrigation “is in declining trend” (departmental “status” report).
Orissa’s GDP growth (“advance estimate” for 2009-10 says 8.35 percent) is slowly catching up with the national growth rate largely due to the mining-related industrial activities. But this is not an unqualified success story. ES says cottage industry has fallen by 50 percent since 2000-01. Of 4,806 micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) units, 1,690 have gone sick by 2008-09. Thirty-two PSUs have been closed and of the other 32 PSUs, nine are either loss making or running on no-profit-no-loss basis.
As for mining, more than 60 percent of licences are illegal, as the apex court-appointed central empowered committee pointed out in its report in April this year.
Therefore, poverty endures. ES provides a measure of it. Orissa remains at the bottom of the country-wide list in per capita expenditure in rural areas and fourth from the last for the same in urban areas (as per 2006-07 NSS data).
An enquiry commission headed by Justice (retd) SK Mohanty, which looked into regional imbalances and submitted its report in 2008, made several telling points. It said 14 districts fell under ‘backward’ or ‘very backward’ category in agriculture and asked for urgent steps to provide irrigation, agro-based industries, agriculture credit, seed supply, technical guidance and marketing facility to improve production and stop distress selling in those districts. It also said 15 districts were industrially ‘backward’ or ‘very backward’ and pointed out how industries required to spend a part of their profit in “peripheral development” (in lieu of concessions like “free/cheap land, cheap electricity and water”) were actually spending in “urban areas including improvement of government buildings”. As for infrastructure, it said all indicators like road and electrification were low in those districts.
This report has not received the importance it deserves. In fact, one road being built in Kashipur (a rare sight!) under the PMGSY is actually meant to connect Utkal Alumina’s plant to its mining site and so passes through largely empty land.
No wonder, Orissa continues to remain a laggard. The latest India Today magazine’s “State of States” report keeps Orissa at number 15 in the overall ranking for performance among 20 big states. In investment environment and macro economy, the state is placed at 14 and 15, respectively. Be it agriculture (17), consumer market (19), primary education (14), infrastructure (15), governance (17) and primary health (16), the state is in the bottom pile. Bihar, though placed lower, has been termed the “turnaround champ”. No such hope for Orissa yet.
In fact, when I first met former finance minister Kanungo in Bhubaneswar and introduced myself as a reporter from Governance Now, his opening remark was: “You have come to a place where governance is missing.” Ranjan Swain, Vidhya Das or Ravindra Jarika won’t really disagree with that view. n
prasanna@governancenow.com
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Missing posts
Time for BJP to explain, why Yeddyurappa is still around
governancenow.com, nov 2010
After a long time, the Bharatiya Janata Party seems to have got its act together as an effective opposition party and put the government on the mat. Parliament remains paralysed on the issue of corruption and several heads have rolled - Shashi Tharoor (Kochi IPL scam), Ashok Chavan (Adarsh housing scam), Suresh Kalmadi (CWG scam) and A Raja (2G spectrum scam).
In many ways, this is a positive development, the most important one of which is to bring corruption in public life to the centre stage of national debate. There is no denying that corruption is rampant and that the central government has to a lot to explain. It is also obvious that the central government is merely staging a “public expiation” by way of getting Tharoor, Chavan, Kalmadi and Raja to resign. That it has no intention of actually punishing them is clear because not a single FIR – the first step to begin the process of bringing them to justice - has been registered against any of them.
Typically, the BJP has sought a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) probe into all of these scams, without talking much about beginning the legal proceedings. For the past few days, parliament has been stalled to press for a JPC into the 2G spectrum scam.
The motive, quite clearly, is political because a JPC provides an opportunity to keep the issue alive for a longer time. Had probity in public life or punishment for corruption been their motive, the party would have put its house in order first.
A glaring example of corruption in its own rank is that of Karnataka chief minister
B S Yeddyurappa. Yeddyurappa has been accused of nepotism. He has made out-of-turn allotment of residential plot to one of his sons in Bangalore and several industrial plots to the firms owned by his two sons and a daughter near Bangalore. While he has been brazing out the call for his resignation by saying that he is “following the tradition set by the Congress and the Janata Dal (Secular), the BJP’s central leadership has maintained silence.
Not long ago, the nation was rocked by the allegation of illegal mining in Bellary by the Reddy brothers, Karunakar, Janrdhan and Somasekhar (one is a minister in Yeddyurappa cabinet and another a member of parliament), who are crucial to the survival of the very first BJP government on the other side of the Vidhyas. Inspite of mounting evidence, they have not been not been asked to resign.
If the BJP wants people to take it seriously on the corruption issue, it should first get its act together and seek resignation of Yeddyurappa and the Reddy brothers first before stalling the parliament on corruption issue.
At least the UPA government has taken some action, however token it may be,
--
Will Ayodhya verdict lead to resolution of the dispute?
October 1, 2010
The Allahabad high court’s verdict on Ayodhya would seem to suggest that the resolution of the long-standing dispute lies in building both a temple and a mosque at the site - a perfectly secular solution for a secular country.
But there is one jarring note. The claim for a temple seems to have been granted on the basis of “faith and belief of Hindus”, rather than legal reasoning and historical facts. It not only ignores vandalism by the faithful who sneaked in an idol in 1949 or the politicians who led the mob to demolish the mosque at the site in 1992 but also seems to lend credence to ASI's questionable findings about a pre-existing temple there.
This issue is bound to figure prominently when the matter reaches the supreme court, primarily because of the fear that this verdict, if not overturned, will legitimize vandalism and provoke more of the same in future.
Hence the question: Will the Ayodhya verdict lead to a resolution or merely prolong the dispute?
--
Shouldn't we bar MPs and ministers from taking any job we have not given them?
April 23, 2010
For more than a week the legislature and the executive have been grappling with the IPL controversy. Almost every enforcement agency is busy digging up the dirt and as more and more murky deals come to surface the cry for an all-encompassing enquiry gets louder, leading to repeated adjournment of parliamentary proceedings. But how fair and meaningful can an enquiry be when it involves several ministers and senior legislators cutting across the party line?
Shouldn’t our legislators better employ their time and energy on the purpose for which they have been elected—to address the concerns of their electorate? After all, their election is a solemn promise to the electorate to work for their betterment for the next five years. But as the IPL controversy reveals, many of our ministers and sitting MPs are busy with something else—running sports bodies. Shouldn’t we bar ministers and sitting legislators from taking up any job, for- or not-for-profit, other than the one we have given them?
governancenow.com, nov 2010
After a long time, the Bharatiya Janata Party seems to have got its act together as an effective opposition party and put the government on the mat. Parliament remains paralysed on the issue of corruption and several heads have rolled - Shashi Tharoor (Kochi IPL scam), Ashok Chavan (Adarsh housing scam), Suresh Kalmadi (CWG scam) and A Raja (2G spectrum scam).
In many ways, this is a positive development, the most important one of which is to bring corruption in public life to the centre stage of national debate. There is no denying that corruption is rampant and that the central government has to a lot to explain. It is also obvious that the central government is merely staging a “public expiation” by way of getting Tharoor, Chavan, Kalmadi and Raja to resign. That it has no intention of actually punishing them is clear because not a single FIR – the first step to begin the process of bringing them to justice - has been registered against any of them.
Typically, the BJP has sought a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) probe into all of these scams, without talking much about beginning the legal proceedings. For the past few days, parliament has been stalled to press for a JPC into the 2G spectrum scam.
The motive, quite clearly, is political because a JPC provides an opportunity to keep the issue alive for a longer time. Had probity in public life or punishment for corruption been their motive, the party would have put its house in order first.
A glaring example of corruption in its own rank is that of Karnataka chief minister
B S Yeddyurappa. Yeddyurappa has been accused of nepotism. He has made out-of-turn allotment of residential plot to one of his sons in Bangalore and several industrial plots to the firms owned by his two sons and a daughter near Bangalore. While he has been brazing out the call for his resignation by saying that he is “following the tradition set by the Congress and the Janata Dal (Secular), the BJP’s central leadership has maintained silence.
Not long ago, the nation was rocked by the allegation of illegal mining in Bellary by the Reddy brothers, Karunakar, Janrdhan and Somasekhar (one is a minister in Yeddyurappa cabinet and another a member of parliament), who are crucial to the survival of the very first BJP government on the other side of the Vidhyas. Inspite of mounting evidence, they have not been not been asked to resign.
If the BJP wants people to take it seriously on the corruption issue, it should first get its act together and seek resignation of Yeddyurappa and the Reddy brothers first before stalling the parliament on corruption issue.
At least the UPA government has taken some action, however token it may be,
--
Will Ayodhya verdict lead to resolution of the dispute?
October 1, 2010
The Allahabad high court’s verdict on Ayodhya would seem to suggest that the resolution of the long-standing dispute lies in building both a temple and a mosque at the site - a perfectly secular solution for a secular country.
But there is one jarring note. The claim for a temple seems to have been granted on the basis of “faith and belief of Hindus”, rather than legal reasoning and historical facts. It not only ignores vandalism by the faithful who sneaked in an idol in 1949 or the politicians who led the mob to demolish the mosque at the site in 1992 but also seems to lend credence to ASI's questionable findings about a pre-existing temple there.
This issue is bound to figure prominently when the matter reaches the supreme court, primarily because of the fear that this verdict, if not overturned, will legitimize vandalism and provoke more of the same in future.
Hence the question: Will the Ayodhya verdict lead to a resolution or merely prolong the dispute?
--
Shouldn't we bar MPs and ministers from taking any job we have not given them?
April 23, 2010
For more than a week the legislature and the executive have been grappling with the IPL controversy. Almost every enforcement agency is busy digging up the dirt and as more and more murky deals come to surface the cry for an all-encompassing enquiry gets louder, leading to repeated adjournment of parliamentary proceedings. But how fair and meaningful can an enquiry be when it involves several ministers and senior legislators cutting across the party line?
Shouldn’t our legislators better employ their time and energy on the purpose for which they have been elected—to address the concerns of their electorate? After all, their election is a solemn promise to the electorate to work for their betterment for the next five years. But as the IPL controversy reveals, many of our ministers and sitting MPs are busy with something else—running sports bodies. Shouldn’t we bar ministers and sitting legislators from taking up any job, for- or not-for-profit, other than the one we have given them?
Making sense of vanishing projects
Governance Now, Nov 15-30
If big-ticket development projects are getting scrapped by the day, blame it on the flawed policy
Since August 24, the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) has scrapped three big-ticket hydel projects - NTPC’s Loharinag Pala (Rs 600 crore spent, 40 percent work complete), Pala Maneri and Bhaironghati in Uttarakhand - and stopped two industrial ones - POSCO’s steel plant and Vedanta’s refinery and mining in Orissa. This happened inspite of the fact that all the statutory approvals had been granted in advance, save for the ‘final’ forest clearance for Vedanta’s mining. If that makes you wonder why, the short answer is this: These projects had got their approvals on the basis of half-truths or untruths to begin with.
And that was possible because the very policies governing the process of approval are designed just to approve. There is little scope for rigorous evaluation for suitability and sustainability of a project or discovering better ways to achieve the same goal.
Therefore, the moment a project is challenged, the cookie crumbles. If you are then tempted to assume that more big-ticket projects may tumble, you may be right. Watch out for the Indira Sagar (Polavaram) multipurpose project in Andhra Pradesh and the Lower Subansiri hydel project in Arunachal Pradesh.
Here we examine these policies in detail.
Missing perspective
Once an MoU is signed with the promoter, which is usually a hush-hush affair with little that is made public, a project comes to the public domain when it is presented for environment clearance. At this point, it is a stand-alone project, like a dam for example. There is no way to examine if the same objective - providing water for drinking and irrigation - can be achieved through more cost effective and efficient methods like smaller dams, check dams, water harvesting and watershed management, localised river linking or revival of dead rivers (as Waterman Rajendra Singh has shown in Rajasthan). A power generation component is often added to the dam to tilt the balance, without provoking independent assessment of power needs or options.
The four-stage environment approval process involves screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal. Screening is aimed at identifying if a project needs an environment impact assessment (EIA) study; scoping sets up the terms of reference (TOR) for EIA, if needed, before a project is presented for public consultation and then it is approved.
All that the EIA Notification of 2006 (which replaced the 1994 one), that governs the EIA study, seeks by way of alternatives is just two innocuous columns in the application form - which asks about alternative “site” and “technology”. These columns don’t matter because by this time the site is already decided and acquired or in the process of being acquired. Resistance to POSCO’s steel plant could have been avoided by shifting the site by a mere three kilometre south, but that never figured. And there is no reason why a developer will provide a technology option other than his own.
In fact, so unifocal is the government’s approach that when the planning commission sat down to prepare an integrated action plan to counter the Maoist menace, it didn’t bother about options but simply increased fund allocations to the existing schemes.
The EIA study is not even designed to do a cost-benefit analysis of a project. It only seeks and gets fact-sheets of costs and supposed benefits.
Missing big picture
The problem is accentuated by the missing big picture. Arunachal Pradesh is saddled with more than 100 hydel projects; the Western Ghats with numerous mining and thermal power projects and river Bhagirathi faces threat from several dams in Uttarakhand. Environment minister Jairam Ramesh has now sought moratorium on projects in the Western Ghats and Arunachal Pradesh and has scrapped three hydel projects in Uttarakhand to save Bhagirathi - Loharinag Pala et al.
In Arunachal Pradesh, 11 hydel projects (8,200 MW) are proposed in the Lohit river basin, six of which are on the Lohit river alone (within a 86 km stretch). Multiple dams on a single river, or in a river basin, may kill the river system, and all those who survive on it. Therefore, it is prudent to do a comprehensive study of the cumulative impact of the dams “in advance”. In fact this is what the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) suggested in 2005.
The MoEF did accept it and ordered such a study in the Lohit river basin but while approving the Demwe Lower hydroelectric project (1,750 MW) on Lohit river in January this year, it said this project “should not be linked with the completion of the basin studies.” The study then becomes meaningless.
Same is the case with the downstream study. It is restricted to 10 km downstream of a dam at present, even though it affects water flow of the entire stretch downstream. Worse, in the case of the Demwe Lower project, downstream impact only on the stretch between the dam and the powerhouse – just 600 metres – was sought.
Similarly, the Aravali hills are devastated by a large number of small mining projects. Iron ore mines in Bellary and bauxite mining in Andhra Pradesh are causing havoc with the environment there. All this is because mines of less than 25 hectares are ‘exempted’ from MoEF clearances. Thermal power plants of less than 500 MW are also exempted.
Self-certification
The problem is further accentuated by the way the EIA is designed. It is essentially a self-certifying exercise. The promoter is expected to get the study done at his own cost – a clear case of conflict of interest. Even in such sensitive issue as introducing genetically modified (GM) food, all toxicity studies, impact on environment and health, have to be conducted by the one pushing for it – Mahyco in the case of Bt brinjal.
The ostensible purpose of the EIA study is to ensure that the “development options are environmentally and socially sound and sustainable” and to address the issues, if any, at the very stage of planning and designing, but the opposite actually happens.
These issues can be easily addressed through independent evaluation. Various expert bodies of the MoEF that clear EIAs work as its extension, endorsing whatever is submitted by a promoter. They add a few conditions to make it seem objective but these are often meaningless or self-defeating, for example, asking for “impact assessment of impounding of water by construction of the dam on the river on aquatic flora and fauna” while approving the Polavaram project in Andhra Pradesh and giving clearance on the “assurance” that the state government will construct 120 km of embankments on two rivers, Sileru and Sabari, to prevent submergence in Orissa and Chhattisgarh.
A planning commission’s task force asked the government to set up an “independent and statutory body” to evaluate and give clearances to projects in 2006. The report is gathering dust.
Kanchi Kohli of non-government organisation Kalpavriksh says, “The entire process of environment clearance is designed to approve. The conditions are, therefore, to mitigate or justify the clearance.”
Defective assessment
These shortcomings get amplified through “rapid”, “draft” and partial EIAs which are allowed, instead of insisting on a comprehensive, all-season assessment. The logic to allow rapid EIA, as given in the EIA Notification of 1994, is: “As a Comprehensive EIA report will normally take at least one year for its preparation, project proponents may furnish Rapid EIA report to the IAA (impact assessment agency) based on one season data (other than monsoon), for examination of the project. Comprehensive EIA report may be submitted later, if so asked for by the IAA”.
Taking advantage of this, POSCO presented a single-season environment impact study for one-third of a steel plant (4 MT capacity, instead of 12 MT) and a power plant (400 MW), sidestepping a captive port, a township, a big water pipeline project, and road and rail links involved with the mega project. It said only 471 families would be affected as against more than 4,000 families according to the locals. A separate rapid EIA was submitted for the port. On the basis of such EIAs it got approval in 2005.
The EIA Notification of 2006 does not talk about “rapid” EIA, but the old regime endures because it allows the project promoters to set the terms of reference (TOR) for the EIA study and allows it to be the “final” one if MoEF’s expert appraisal committee (EAC) doesn’t finalise it in 60 days.
The Adani group-promoted Waterfront Development Project in Mundra, Gujarat, which involves four ports and an LNG terminal, was allowed a “rapid” EIA and was cleared in 2008 under the 2006 notification.
Neeraj Vagholikar of Kalpavriksh says the real issue is “not insisting on a comprehensive EIA for the big projects”. But the policy flaw remains.
No public participation
The project clearance process may allow “public consultation” but this isn’t same as “public consent”. Moreover, what they get by way of an EIA study is a “draft” one, as per the EIA Notification of 2006. Affected people have no say in the final stage of approval, to which only the project promoter is invited. It works this way: Vedanta’s refinery in Orissa gets approval on wrong information, starts operations in 2007 and completes 60 percent of six-fold expansion when MoEF “discovers” the truth in August 2010 and stops it.
Secondly, there is also a provision “to skip” this consultation altogether on a flimsy ground - if “it is not possible to conduct the public hearing in a manner which will enable the views of the concerned local persons to be freely expressed,” as per EIA Notification of 2006.
The 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments give wide-ranging powers to local self-government bodies like municipalities and panchayats to plan and approve projects in their respective areas. The Forest Rights Act of 2006 and the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996 give overriding powers to tribals and other forest dwellers. These bodies and laws are not part of the approval process. Both the projects of Vedanta and POSCO in Orissa were stopped because of denial of forest rights to the affected families.
The MoEF’s approval process is also completely delinked from land acquisition process if it doesn’t involve forest land. And in case it does, a separate clearance process is followed and a separate department deals with it. There is a disconnect among various departments. As a result Vedanta’s refinery started working, and expanded, without the mining part getting approval.
Blind alleys
All these shortcomings can be overcome if a large number of expert bodies and agencies of the MoEF, set up to recommend a wide range of projects for approval, work in a transparent manner, independently and apply their mind. Apparently, they don’t and that is because they are not even expected to do so.
Vedanta and POSCO both submitted “rapid” and “partial” EIAs, conducted in the monsoon months which is expressly “banned”. Vedanta even presented one which was different from the one presented to the public. Yet, they got clearances.
Himanshu Thakkar, a prominent environment activist, points out that P Abraham, promoter of the Demwe Lower project, was chairman of the very expert appraisal committee (EAC) that actually approved it! He also points out how the expert bodies giving environment and forest clearances act independent of each other even when dealing with the same project. So, projects often start after one set of clearances while the other is pending.
Further, proceedings of the Central Water Commission (CWC) that gives techno-economic clearances to irrigation projects like Polavaram are not subject to public scrutiny.
Given all these, at least an effective and independent monitoring system should be in place. Even that is missing and hence, fact-finding teams are sent selectively; only when protests grow too loud or there are political interests to serve.
What should be done...
* No piecemeal, stand-alone clearance. Project be considered in totality, taking into account overall plan for the geographical region and human and environment cost
* No para-dropping of projects. Participation and approval of local self-government bodies should be mandatory
* Independent national authority to then evaluate and clear projects
* Mandatory disclosure of all MoUs for projects requiring public or private land and national resources
* No conditional clearances if such conditions or impact studies have the potential to alter the project
* Fact-sheets of cost and benefit be replaced with cost-benefit analysis
* No exemptions from MoEF clearance for smaller mines, dams, thermal power plants
* Mandatory downstream and river basin study
* Mandatory comprehensive and final EIA. No rapid or draft EIAs
* Independent and credible body to prepare EIA studies
* Public “consent” be made mandatory
* Independent body to monitor and check compliance
* Accountability and transparency in approval process
If big-ticket development projects are getting scrapped by the day, blame it on the flawed policy
Since August 24, the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) has scrapped three big-ticket hydel projects - NTPC’s Loharinag Pala (Rs 600 crore spent, 40 percent work complete), Pala Maneri and Bhaironghati in Uttarakhand - and stopped two industrial ones - POSCO’s steel plant and Vedanta’s refinery and mining in Orissa. This happened inspite of the fact that all the statutory approvals had been granted in advance, save for the ‘final’ forest clearance for Vedanta’s mining. If that makes you wonder why, the short answer is this: These projects had got their approvals on the basis of half-truths or untruths to begin with.
And that was possible because the very policies governing the process of approval are designed just to approve. There is little scope for rigorous evaluation for suitability and sustainability of a project or discovering better ways to achieve the same goal.
Therefore, the moment a project is challenged, the cookie crumbles. If you are then tempted to assume that more big-ticket projects may tumble, you may be right. Watch out for the Indira Sagar (Polavaram) multipurpose project in Andhra Pradesh and the Lower Subansiri hydel project in Arunachal Pradesh.
Here we examine these policies in detail.
Missing perspective
Once an MoU is signed with the promoter, which is usually a hush-hush affair with little that is made public, a project comes to the public domain when it is presented for environment clearance. At this point, it is a stand-alone project, like a dam for example. There is no way to examine if the same objective - providing water for drinking and irrigation - can be achieved through more cost effective and efficient methods like smaller dams, check dams, water harvesting and watershed management, localised river linking or revival of dead rivers (as Waterman Rajendra Singh has shown in Rajasthan). A power generation component is often added to the dam to tilt the balance, without provoking independent assessment of power needs or options.
The four-stage environment approval process involves screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal. Screening is aimed at identifying if a project needs an environment impact assessment (EIA) study; scoping sets up the terms of reference (TOR) for EIA, if needed, before a project is presented for public consultation and then it is approved.
All that the EIA Notification of 2006 (which replaced the 1994 one), that governs the EIA study, seeks by way of alternatives is just two innocuous columns in the application form - which asks about alternative “site” and “technology”. These columns don’t matter because by this time the site is already decided and acquired or in the process of being acquired. Resistance to POSCO’s steel plant could have been avoided by shifting the site by a mere three kilometre south, but that never figured. And there is no reason why a developer will provide a technology option other than his own.
In fact, so unifocal is the government’s approach that when the planning commission sat down to prepare an integrated action plan to counter the Maoist menace, it didn’t bother about options but simply increased fund allocations to the existing schemes.
The EIA study is not even designed to do a cost-benefit analysis of a project. It only seeks and gets fact-sheets of costs and supposed benefits.
Missing big picture
The problem is accentuated by the missing big picture. Arunachal Pradesh is saddled with more than 100 hydel projects; the Western Ghats with numerous mining and thermal power projects and river Bhagirathi faces threat from several dams in Uttarakhand. Environment minister Jairam Ramesh has now sought moratorium on projects in the Western Ghats and Arunachal Pradesh and has scrapped three hydel projects in Uttarakhand to save Bhagirathi - Loharinag Pala et al.
In Arunachal Pradesh, 11 hydel projects (8,200 MW) are proposed in the Lohit river basin, six of which are on the Lohit river alone (within a 86 km stretch). Multiple dams on a single river, or in a river basin, may kill the river system, and all those who survive on it. Therefore, it is prudent to do a comprehensive study of the cumulative impact of the dams “in advance”. In fact this is what the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) suggested in 2005.
The MoEF did accept it and ordered such a study in the Lohit river basin but while approving the Demwe Lower hydroelectric project (1,750 MW) on Lohit river in January this year, it said this project “should not be linked with the completion of the basin studies.” The study then becomes meaningless.
Same is the case with the downstream study. It is restricted to 10 km downstream of a dam at present, even though it affects water flow of the entire stretch downstream. Worse, in the case of the Demwe Lower project, downstream impact only on the stretch between the dam and the powerhouse – just 600 metres – was sought.
Similarly, the Aravali hills are devastated by a large number of small mining projects. Iron ore mines in Bellary and bauxite mining in Andhra Pradesh are causing havoc with the environment there. All this is because mines of less than 25 hectares are ‘exempted’ from MoEF clearances. Thermal power plants of less than 500 MW are also exempted.
Self-certification
The problem is further accentuated by the way the EIA is designed. It is essentially a self-certifying exercise. The promoter is expected to get the study done at his own cost – a clear case of conflict of interest. Even in such sensitive issue as introducing genetically modified (GM) food, all toxicity studies, impact on environment and health, have to be conducted by the one pushing for it – Mahyco in the case of Bt brinjal.
The ostensible purpose of the EIA study is to ensure that the “development options are environmentally and socially sound and sustainable” and to address the issues, if any, at the very stage of planning and designing, but the opposite actually happens.
These issues can be easily addressed through independent evaluation. Various expert bodies of the MoEF that clear EIAs work as its extension, endorsing whatever is submitted by a promoter. They add a few conditions to make it seem objective but these are often meaningless or self-defeating, for example, asking for “impact assessment of impounding of water by construction of the dam on the river on aquatic flora and fauna” while approving the Polavaram project in Andhra Pradesh and giving clearance on the “assurance” that the state government will construct 120 km of embankments on two rivers, Sileru and Sabari, to prevent submergence in Orissa and Chhattisgarh.
A planning commission’s task force asked the government to set up an “independent and statutory body” to evaluate and give clearances to projects in 2006. The report is gathering dust.
Kanchi Kohli of non-government organisation Kalpavriksh says, “The entire process of environment clearance is designed to approve. The conditions are, therefore, to mitigate or justify the clearance.”
Defective assessment
These shortcomings get amplified through “rapid”, “draft” and partial EIAs which are allowed, instead of insisting on a comprehensive, all-season assessment. The logic to allow rapid EIA, as given in the EIA Notification of 1994, is: “As a Comprehensive EIA report will normally take at least one year for its preparation, project proponents may furnish Rapid EIA report to the IAA (impact assessment agency) based on one season data (other than monsoon), for examination of the project. Comprehensive EIA report may be submitted later, if so asked for by the IAA”.
Taking advantage of this, POSCO presented a single-season environment impact study for one-third of a steel plant (4 MT capacity, instead of 12 MT) and a power plant (400 MW), sidestepping a captive port, a township, a big water pipeline project, and road and rail links involved with the mega project. It said only 471 families would be affected as against more than 4,000 families according to the locals. A separate rapid EIA was submitted for the port. On the basis of such EIAs it got approval in 2005.
The EIA Notification of 2006 does not talk about “rapid” EIA, but the old regime endures because it allows the project promoters to set the terms of reference (TOR) for the EIA study and allows it to be the “final” one if MoEF’s expert appraisal committee (EAC) doesn’t finalise it in 60 days.
The Adani group-promoted Waterfront Development Project in Mundra, Gujarat, which involves four ports and an LNG terminal, was allowed a “rapid” EIA and was cleared in 2008 under the 2006 notification.
Neeraj Vagholikar of Kalpavriksh says the real issue is “not insisting on a comprehensive EIA for the big projects”. But the policy flaw remains.
No public participation
The project clearance process may allow “public consultation” but this isn’t same as “public consent”. Moreover, what they get by way of an EIA study is a “draft” one, as per the EIA Notification of 2006. Affected people have no say in the final stage of approval, to which only the project promoter is invited. It works this way: Vedanta’s refinery in Orissa gets approval on wrong information, starts operations in 2007 and completes 60 percent of six-fold expansion when MoEF “discovers” the truth in August 2010 and stops it.
Secondly, there is also a provision “to skip” this consultation altogether on a flimsy ground - if “it is not possible to conduct the public hearing in a manner which will enable the views of the concerned local persons to be freely expressed,” as per EIA Notification of 2006.
The 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments give wide-ranging powers to local self-government bodies like municipalities and panchayats to plan and approve projects in their respective areas. The Forest Rights Act of 2006 and the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996 give overriding powers to tribals and other forest dwellers. These bodies and laws are not part of the approval process. Both the projects of Vedanta and POSCO in Orissa were stopped because of denial of forest rights to the affected families.
The MoEF’s approval process is also completely delinked from land acquisition process if it doesn’t involve forest land. And in case it does, a separate clearance process is followed and a separate department deals with it. There is a disconnect among various departments. As a result Vedanta’s refinery started working, and expanded, without the mining part getting approval.
Blind alleys
All these shortcomings can be overcome if a large number of expert bodies and agencies of the MoEF, set up to recommend a wide range of projects for approval, work in a transparent manner, independently and apply their mind. Apparently, they don’t and that is because they are not even expected to do so.
Vedanta and POSCO both submitted “rapid” and “partial” EIAs, conducted in the monsoon months which is expressly “banned”. Vedanta even presented one which was different from the one presented to the public. Yet, they got clearances.
Himanshu Thakkar, a prominent environment activist, points out that P Abraham, promoter of the Demwe Lower project, was chairman of the very expert appraisal committee (EAC) that actually approved it! He also points out how the expert bodies giving environment and forest clearances act independent of each other even when dealing with the same project. So, projects often start after one set of clearances while the other is pending.
Further, proceedings of the Central Water Commission (CWC) that gives techno-economic clearances to irrigation projects like Polavaram are not subject to public scrutiny.
Given all these, at least an effective and independent monitoring system should be in place. Even that is missing and hence, fact-finding teams are sent selectively; only when protests grow too loud or there are political interests to serve.
What should be done...
* No piecemeal, stand-alone clearance. Project be considered in totality, taking into account overall plan for the geographical region and human and environment cost
* No para-dropping of projects. Participation and approval of local self-government bodies should be mandatory
* Independent national authority to then evaluate and clear projects
* Mandatory disclosure of all MoUs for projects requiring public or private land and national resources
* No conditional clearances if such conditions or impact studies have the potential to alter the project
* Fact-sheets of cost and benefit be replaced with cost-benefit analysis
* No exemptions from MoEF clearance for smaller mines, dams, thermal power plants
* Mandatory downstream and river basin study
* Mandatory comprehensive and final EIA. No rapid or draft EIAs
* Independent and credible body to prepare EIA studies
* Public “consent” be made mandatory
* Independent body to monitor and check compliance
* Accountability and transparency in approval process
Time to go beyond resignations
Governance Now, Nov 15-30
Let the process of law begin at the beginning with FIRs against Chavan, Kalmadi and Raja
On the face of it, the Manmohan Singh government seems to have acted against Ashok Chavan and Suresh Kalmadi for their alleged involvement in corrupt deals, by removing one from the chief ministership of Maharashtra and the other from the party’s parliamentary party. Given the main opposition party’s unrelenting campaign and the latest report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) holding telecom minister A Raja personally responsible for the Rs 1.7 lakh crore 2G spectrum scam, the government may well seek his resignation too. But does any of this amount to punishment for the crime these three are alleged to have committed? Certainly not. The rule of law is clear in this matter. Once there is a prima facie evidence of any wrongdoing on anybody’s part, the law enforcing agency is supposed to file an FIR, arrest and interrogate the suspect, collect necessary evidence and file the chargesheet within a stipulated time for the trial to begin. Our judicial process then takes over, which is quite an elaborate affair and takes 15 years, on average, to dispose a case.
Where do Chavan and Kalmadi stand in this scheme of things? Not a single FIR has been filed against Chavan for his role in clearing the Adarsh society in violation of almost every law of the land or getting his in-laws flats. Knowing how our law enforcing agencies and the governments function, there may not be any FIR against him. A year down the line, he may well be brought to the centre as a minister, wiping out a game of deception being played out at present for the benefit of the common man, who somehow never gets away from the long arms of the same law. Similar is the case with Kalmadi. A series of corrupt deals by the Commonwealth Games organising committee he headed has come to public notice. Again, not an FIR has been filed. Nor is there any indication that this will be done in the foreseeable future. No law enforcing agency has landed at the door of either Chavan or Kalmadi to arrest or interrogate them or to start inquiring about their assets and the manner in which these were made. Kalmadi, in the meanwhile, has flown to China to attend the Asian Games. A lesser mortal would have had his passport impounded but no such inconvenience for Kalmadi.
A CBI inquiry has been ordered in all the three scams, including the 2G spectrum allocation. Given the dubious track record of our premier investigating agency in dealing with corrupt politicians one can predict, without the slightest hesitation, that nothing will come out of it. Assuming for the sake of argument that something does come out none of the politicians will be brought to justice. The CBI has a very clean record in the matter. If you think personal honesty and integrity of the prime minister will make any difference, here is a grim reminder: The current central vigilance commissioner (CVC), P J Thomas, who supervises the CBI’s functioning, was appointed in spite of the fact the very same CBI had chargesheeted him in connection with the palm oil scam of Kerala in the 1990s. The CBI’s case file is very much open at present but if he is roaming free it is because the government didn’t give permission to prosecute him. A dubious “single directive” in the CVC Act calls for the centre’s clearance to prosecute officers of the joint secretary rank and above. Thomas’ role as telecom secretary in protecting his minister Raja in the 2G spectrum scam too is highly suspicious. Weeks before his appointment as CVC, he had sought and armed himself with a law ministry opinion that the 2G spectrum allocation was beyond the jurisdiction of CVC and CAG, on the plea that it was a “policy matter”. Now a PIL has been filed challenging his appointment as the CVC and the apex court has sought all relevant records from the government. Can anyone expect him to do an honest job and catch the minister? Not even in his wild dreams.
Where does all this leave us? Frankly, it is a hopeless situation. But an editorial can’t end on a note of pessimism. It has to show the direction and hence, the
inevitable advice to the government: Take
the first step and register FIRs against Chavan, Kalmadi and Raja.
Let the process of law begin at the beginning with FIRs against Chavan, Kalmadi and Raja
On the face of it, the Manmohan Singh government seems to have acted against Ashok Chavan and Suresh Kalmadi for their alleged involvement in corrupt deals, by removing one from the chief ministership of Maharashtra and the other from the party’s parliamentary party. Given the main opposition party’s unrelenting campaign and the latest report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) holding telecom minister A Raja personally responsible for the Rs 1.7 lakh crore 2G spectrum scam, the government may well seek his resignation too. But does any of this amount to punishment for the crime these three are alleged to have committed? Certainly not. The rule of law is clear in this matter. Once there is a prima facie evidence of any wrongdoing on anybody’s part, the law enforcing agency is supposed to file an FIR, arrest and interrogate the suspect, collect necessary evidence and file the chargesheet within a stipulated time for the trial to begin. Our judicial process then takes over, which is quite an elaborate affair and takes 15 years, on average, to dispose a case.
Where do Chavan and Kalmadi stand in this scheme of things? Not a single FIR has been filed against Chavan for his role in clearing the Adarsh society in violation of almost every law of the land or getting his in-laws flats. Knowing how our law enforcing agencies and the governments function, there may not be any FIR against him. A year down the line, he may well be brought to the centre as a minister, wiping out a game of deception being played out at present for the benefit of the common man, who somehow never gets away from the long arms of the same law. Similar is the case with Kalmadi. A series of corrupt deals by the Commonwealth Games organising committee he headed has come to public notice. Again, not an FIR has been filed. Nor is there any indication that this will be done in the foreseeable future. No law enforcing agency has landed at the door of either Chavan or Kalmadi to arrest or interrogate them or to start inquiring about their assets and the manner in which these were made. Kalmadi, in the meanwhile, has flown to China to attend the Asian Games. A lesser mortal would have had his passport impounded but no such inconvenience for Kalmadi.
A CBI inquiry has been ordered in all the three scams, including the 2G spectrum allocation. Given the dubious track record of our premier investigating agency in dealing with corrupt politicians one can predict, without the slightest hesitation, that nothing will come out of it. Assuming for the sake of argument that something does come out none of the politicians will be brought to justice. The CBI has a very clean record in the matter. If you think personal honesty and integrity of the prime minister will make any difference, here is a grim reminder: The current central vigilance commissioner (CVC), P J Thomas, who supervises the CBI’s functioning, was appointed in spite of the fact the very same CBI had chargesheeted him in connection with the palm oil scam of Kerala in the 1990s. The CBI’s case file is very much open at present but if he is roaming free it is because the government didn’t give permission to prosecute him. A dubious “single directive” in the CVC Act calls for the centre’s clearance to prosecute officers of the joint secretary rank and above. Thomas’ role as telecom secretary in protecting his minister Raja in the 2G spectrum scam too is highly suspicious. Weeks before his appointment as CVC, he had sought and armed himself with a law ministry opinion that the 2G spectrum allocation was beyond the jurisdiction of CVC and CAG, on the plea that it was a “policy matter”. Now a PIL has been filed challenging his appointment as the CVC and the apex court has sought all relevant records from the government. Can anyone expect him to do an honest job and catch the minister? Not even in his wild dreams.
Where does all this leave us? Frankly, it is a hopeless situation. But an editorial can’t end on a note of pessimism. It has to show the direction and hence, the
inevitable advice to the government: Take
the first step and register FIRs against Chavan, Kalmadi and Raja.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)