Governance Now, April 16-30
Myths and misconceptions about Anna and his cause
Anna’s fast-unto-death unnerved many, and predictably so.
The ruling clique was annoyed but used mild language to denounce his Gandhian satyagraha and the cause. The Congress, which leads the union government, described it “unnecessary” and “premature” and warned that this would open a floodgate for such tactics to get every other demand, fair or unfair, conceded. Other politicians were harsh. Samajwadi Party spokesman Mohan Singh said it was a “Fascist tactics”. Raghuvansh Prasad of the RJD said such “outpouring of anger against political parties, politicians and political workers” that the country witnessed at Jantar Mantar and elsewhere “will take this large nation towards anarchy”.
The sceptics of the commentariat were nuanced. One wrote “A comic revolution of an obsolete man” to say, among other things, that “We must not underestimate what television can do to an absolute farce”.
A newspaper editorial was headlined “They, the people” with a sub-head: “Illiberal, self-righteous sound and fury isn’t quite the weapon against corruption”.
A policy wonk wrote “Of the few, by the few”, saying: “Sometimes a sense of unbridled virtue can also subvert democracy” and that “There is something deeply coercive about fasting unto death. When it is tied to an unparalleled moral eminence, as it is in the case of Anna Hazare, it amounts to blackmail”.
And added for good measure: “But B R Ambedkar was surely right, in one of his great speeches, to warn that recourse to such methods was opening up a democracy to the “grammar of anarchy””.
So what was so infuriating about a frail, 70-plus-year-old man’s fast to pressure the government to set up an apex corruption watchdog, the Lokpal, especially when for more than four decades, all the political parties in the country have conspired to keep it in the limbo?
Surely, a functional and mature democracy of ours, weighed down though by all-round corruption – involving ministers, senior bureaucrats and even high court and supreme court judges – deserves a corruption watchdog. What’s so alarming if Anna sits on a fast to press for the one?
Here we examine all the half-truths, untruths, myths and misconceptions that the politicians and the sceptics peddled to undermine Anna and his cause and see what their real worth is.
Myth I: Anna’s fast to press for Lokpal was unnecessary, premature and amounts to blackmail
Consider the run-up to Anna’s fast:
* For 42 years, the union governments of all hues – of the Congress, Janata Party, National Front, United Front, National Democratic Alliance or United Progressive Alliance – prevaricated to ensure the Lokpal Bill was not legislated.
* For two years, the PM and the CBI knew about the 2G spectrum scam, as Arun Shourie and others confirmed, but A Raja was not only made telecom minister again in 2009, he was given a free reign until the supreme court asked in October 2010: “The same minister is continuing. Is it the way the government is functioning? Is it rule of law?”
* The CAG forewarned government about the CWG scam in mid-2009 and then confirmed it in 2010. Suresh Kalmadi is still roaming free.
* Hasan Ali, his billions of dollars in tax havens and more than Rs 70,000 crore in pending tax came to the IT department’s notice in 2007. He was roaming free until the supreme court asked the government in March 2011: “What the hell is going on in this country?”
* Former CVC Pratyush Sinha, explained in a series of interviews post-retirement why he twiddled his thumbs for four years in office: CVC has no power, CVC is an advisory body, CVC has no jurisdiction over political executive. The government replaced him with P J Thomas, who was not put to trial for 20 years in a criminal case. The supreme court summarily dismissed him.
* After 42-years of trying, the government has come up with Lokpal Bill, 2010. This gives no suo motu power to Lokpal to register an FIR, investigate and prosecute the corrupt politicians. It can only take up cases referred to it by the presiding officers of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and send them back with its “recommendations”. But, it does have the power to try and punish – up to three years in jail with or without a fine of Rs 50,000 – those it thinks made frivolous complaints against the politicians!
Myth II: It undermines democracy, parliamentary system and the constitution to seek 50 percent membership in a committee to draft the Lokpal Bill or impose “Jan Lokpal Bill” the civil society has prepared on the government. It is the parliament’s prerogative to make laws.
Here is why what Anna and the people crowding around him are not guilty of the charge:
* This “myth” presupposes that democracy for you, me and Anna ends with casting of our votes. This is sheer ignorance and betrays a feudal mindset.
* Anna wants a say in “drafting” of the bill. His letter to the PM said clearly: “What are we asking for? We are not saying that you should accept the Bill drafted by us. But kindly create a credible platform for discussions – a joint committee with at least half the members from the civil society suggested by us”. This was repeated by him and others several times thereafter.
* It doesn’t amount to bypassing the parliamentary system. Because, once the “draft” is ready, it will go to the union cabinet, and then be introduced in parliament. The bill will be referred to a parliamentary standing committee and come back for debate in both houses of parliament. Then it will be consented to by the president and notified.
* If “drafting” the bill is an issue, the National Advisory Council (NAC) is guilty of dictating terms to the government on several legislations, including the Food Security Bill. And so are the industrial bodies like CII, FICCI and think tanks.
* All the landmark and progressive legislation of the past decade – the RTI Act, Forest Rights Act and the NREG Act – were actually drafted by the civil society. The parliament merely put its stamp of approval.
* The CVC Act of 2003 was dictated, clause by clause, by the supreme court. There are several other cases too. There exist many executive fiats, one of which brought the Planning Commission into existence. Do these violate parliament’s prerogative too?
Myth III: Anna and his supporters have opened up democracy to “grammar of anarchy”
Actually, the opposite is true. Pressing for a say in the policy making process, by way of Anna’s fast, shows something is wrong with our democracy in the first place. Active participation of people in the policy making is a healthy sign of a functional democracy.
Ambedkar’s “grammar of anarchy” speech came at the end of “framing” of the constitution in November 1949. He was asking people “to hold fast to constitutional methods” now that we have a constitution and not resort to either “bloody revolution” or “satyagraha”.
Let’s see how we have fared 61 years down the line:
* As P J Thomas pointed out to the supreme court, 153 of our MPs face criminal charges and yet continue to make laws in the parliament. Some of them get re-elected year after year. The law breakers have become law makers.
* The “single-directive” (a British hangover) mandates that no officer of the level of joint secretary and above can be prosecuted without government’s sanction (to which PJ Thomas owed his appointment as CVC).
* Suresh Kalmadi, Lalu Prasad, Mulayam Singh, Mayawati, Sukh Ram and others are roaming free despite serious charges of corruption and amassing disproportionate assets pending against them.
* There is no end to the scams – Adarsh scam, CWG scam, 2G spectrum scam, Niira Radia Gate, Isro spectrum scam, Cash-for-votes in parliament, CVC appointment and so on.
* Votes of confidence were won by the UPA-I several times by using the CBI (to get Mayawati and Mulayam on its side) and money power (WikiLeaks cables and display of cash in parliament).
* No credible anti-corruption watchdog. The CVC turned out to be dud.
* Sharad Pawar, who, as food and agriculture minister, has batted only for the blackmarketeers and hoarders and whose name comes up in connection with several scams and scandals and unsavoury characters, was a member of the GoM redrafting the Lokpal Bill. He conceded Anna’s point and resigned from the GoM, but not from the government.
Do any of these (and others mentioned earlier) measure up to constitutional values or methods to now condemn Anna’s fast as opening up our democracy to anarchy?
Myth IV: Conceding Anna’s demand will open the floodgates for such coercive tactics
On the contrary, it is a healthy sign that the people will have a greater say and active participation in policy making. It is clear that our representatives act like sovereigns for the next five years after getting elected and care little for people’s aspirations.
Seeking something from “their own government” (remember, democracy is by the people, for the people and of the people), even if by way of a fast when nobody cares or listens to them for decades is not a such bad idea. Or is it?
Myth V: How can some civil society groups arrogate to themselves the sole right to be “the people of India”?
This presupposes that “We, the people” – you, me, Anna and the civil society members like Arvind Kejriwal – don’t have any right or say on policy matters, not even at the “drafting” stage. This also presupposes that only “They, the people” – the politicians, legislators and their backers – hold constitutional (and perhaps, divine) right to decide the fate of the rest.
Besides, Anna’s platform is not exclusive. He and Kejriwal have said they will consult people from every corner of the country in drafting the bill.
Think it over. And don’t let yourself be drowned in the Goebbelsian propaganda being unleashed.
Monday, April 18, 2011
The Bill without will
Governance Now, April 16-30
The journey of the Lokpal Bill and how the political establishment has been prevaricating to keep it at bay for 42 years
The idea of the Lokpal, which was supposed to be an ombudsman on the lines of those in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, was first mooted after two big financial scandals hit the free India in the 50s and 60s – a) Mundra scandal, which led to resignation of finance minister T T Krishnamachari and b) charges of corruption against Punjab province (Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh) chief minister Pratap Singh Kairon which led to his resignation in 1964. The first Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) of 1966, headed by Morarji Desai, pitched for such a body to fight corruption in high places. It envisaged a two-tier system – Lokpal at the centre and Lokayuktas in the states.
* The first Lokpal Bill was drafted and introduced in parliament way back in 1968. This was passed by the Lok Sabha but was pending in the Rajya Sabha when the first mid-term elections were held in 1971.
* Thereafter, the Lokpal Bill was introduced in parliament seven times – 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998 and 2001. All these bills lapsed with the dissolution of respective Lok Sabhas, except for the one in 1985 which was withdrawn on “specious” grounds. The 2010 bill, is yet to be introduced in parliament.
* All Lokpal Bills (except the 1985 one) lapsed with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha because of an inbuilt infirmity that continues till date – salary and allowances of the Lokpal is charged to the Consolidated Fund of India which makes it a money bill and, hence, has to be introduced in the Lok Sabha. This is a deliberate attempt and is attributed to the reluctance of the government and the members of parliament to treat it otherwise. Just as the salary and allowances of the Election Commission of India is part of the law ministry’s budget, if that of the Lokpal is made a part of, say, the home ministry (whose committee examined the last three bills), the bill can be introduced in the Rajya Sabha too and won’t lapse with every general election. But political parties don’t want the baggage.
* Inclusion of the prime minister, the highest political executive, in the Lokpal’s ambit has been contentious. The expert panels, including the ARC 1 of 1966, ACR 2 of 2007 and the National Commission on Working of the Constitution of 2002, advocated his exclusion. Thus, the bills of 1968, 1971 and 1985 excluded him but public pressure ensured that he is included in those of 1977, 1989, 2001 and 2010. The 2010 bill excludes the bureaucrats – another contentious issue.
* Inclusion of MPs too has been contentious. Many of the bills, therefore, excluded them, except for the ones of 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2010. The MPs have argued that parliament being the highest democratic institution, an outside body like the Lokpal can’t be given jurisdiction over them.
* Jurisdiction over the judiciary is another bone of contention. A parliamentary committee of 2001 recommended a separate legislation for the judiciary.
* The 2010 bill suffers major handicaps. It covers PM, MPs and ministers but excludes bureaucrats. It is an advisory body. It has no suo motu power to register FIR, investigate or prosecute anyone. It will enquire into the cases referred to it by the presiding officers of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and will report back its findings and recommendations. This makes Lokpal as toothless as the central vigilance commission (CVC) and hence the disquiet among the people and civil society members.
* Shockingly, however, 2010 bill provides Lokpal with power of summary trial and power to award punishment of up to three years of imprisonment and/or fine of Rs 50,000 to the complainant if it thinks the complaint is frivolous! This actually turns the Lokpal on its head.
* While the centre has dithered, the states have taken a lead. Maharashtra was the first to set up the Lokayukta in 1972. Though Orissa enacted the law in 1970, it appointed a Lokayukta in 1983. So far, 18 states have Lokayuktas – Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh.
If the Lokpal Bill is still pending, the reason is simple: Politicians don't want a corruption watchdog.
The journey of the Lokpal Bill and how the political establishment has been prevaricating to keep it at bay for 42 years
The idea of the Lokpal, which was supposed to be an ombudsman on the lines of those in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, was first mooted after two big financial scandals hit the free India in the 50s and 60s – a) Mundra scandal, which led to resignation of finance minister T T Krishnamachari and b) charges of corruption against Punjab province (Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh) chief minister Pratap Singh Kairon which led to his resignation in 1964. The first Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) of 1966, headed by Morarji Desai, pitched for such a body to fight corruption in high places. It envisaged a two-tier system – Lokpal at the centre and Lokayuktas in the states.
* The first Lokpal Bill was drafted and introduced in parliament way back in 1968. This was passed by the Lok Sabha but was pending in the Rajya Sabha when the first mid-term elections were held in 1971.
* Thereafter, the Lokpal Bill was introduced in parliament seven times – 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998 and 2001. All these bills lapsed with the dissolution of respective Lok Sabhas, except for the one in 1985 which was withdrawn on “specious” grounds. The 2010 bill, is yet to be introduced in parliament.
* All Lokpal Bills (except the 1985 one) lapsed with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha because of an inbuilt infirmity that continues till date – salary and allowances of the Lokpal is charged to the Consolidated Fund of India which makes it a money bill and, hence, has to be introduced in the Lok Sabha. This is a deliberate attempt and is attributed to the reluctance of the government and the members of parliament to treat it otherwise. Just as the salary and allowances of the Election Commission of India is part of the law ministry’s budget, if that of the Lokpal is made a part of, say, the home ministry (whose committee examined the last three bills), the bill can be introduced in the Rajya Sabha too and won’t lapse with every general election. But political parties don’t want the baggage.
* Inclusion of the prime minister, the highest political executive, in the Lokpal’s ambit has been contentious. The expert panels, including the ARC 1 of 1966, ACR 2 of 2007 and the National Commission on Working of the Constitution of 2002, advocated his exclusion. Thus, the bills of 1968, 1971 and 1985 excluded him but public pressure ensured that he is included in those of 1977, 1989, 2001 and 2010. The 2010 bill excludes the bureaucrats – another contentious issue.
* Inclusion of MPs too has been contentious. Many of the bills, therefore, excluded them, except for the ones of 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2010. The MPs have argued that parliament being the highest democratic institution, an outside body like the Lokpal can’t be given jurisdiction over them.
* Jurisdiction over the judiciary is another bone of contention. A parliamentary committee of 2001 recommended a separate legislation for the judiciary.
* The 2010 bill suffers major handicaps. It covers PM, MPs and ministers but excludes bureaucrats. It is an advisory body. It has no suo motu power to register FIR, investigate or prosecute anyone. It will enquire into the cases referred to it by the presiding officers of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and will report back its findings and recommendations. This makes Lokpal as toothless as the central vigilance commission (CVC) and hence the disquiet among the people and civil society members.
* Shockingly, however, 2010 bill provides Lokpal with power of summary trial and power to award punishment of up to three years of imprisonment and/or fine of Rs 50,000 to the complainant if it thinks the complaint is frivolous! This actually turns the Lokpal on its head.
* While the centre has dithered, the states have taken a lead. Maharashtra was the first to set up the Lokayukta in 1972. Though Orissa enacted the law in 1970, it appointed a Lokayukta in 1983. So far, 18 states have Lokayuktas – Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh.
If the Lokpal Bill is still pending, the reason is simple: Politicians don't want a corruption watchdog.
MSP for MFP: 15 years too late
Governance Now, april 16-30 edit
Union and state governments continue to violate the law of the land
In the first week of this month, the planning commission said it had written to both the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) and the finance ministry to fix minimum support price (MSP) for “minor forest produce” (MFP). Environment minister Jairam Ramesh, in turn, said he was already on the job and had, in fact, even taken up the case with finance minister Pranab Mukherjee. At first glance, all these would seem a welcome change, a timely and appropriate move to empower the tribal communities, except that all of them and others in office are guilty of violating the law of the land for 15 long years.
The Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) bestowed “the ownership of the minor forest produce” on the tribal communities in 1996. Even while preparing and releasing its Integrated Action Plan for 60 Maoist-affected districts in 2010 (worth a little less than Rs 15,000 crore), the plan panel conveniently forgot to deal with MFP. This was despite the fact that it had, at the time, worked out that bestowing this ownership, which is their legal entitlement, would mean a whopping direct income of Rs 50,000 crore a year for the tribals.
If ever there was any confusion over the definition of MFP, the Forest Rights Act of 2006 removed it completely. It’s definition said: “Minor forest produce includes all non-timber forest produce of plant origin including bamboo, brush wood, stumps, cane, tussar, cocoons, honey, wax, lac, tendu or kendu leaves, medicinal plants and herbs, roots, tubers, and the like”. But see what Ramesh did on as late as March 21, 2011. He wrote a letter to all the chief ministers with a foreword: “I am now writing to you on a related issue of declaring and treating bamboo as Minor Forest Produce.”
Clearly, he hadn’t read the Forest Rights Act that listed bamboo first as MFP. His letter went on to say that the state governments and forest departments should now ensure, among other things: a) Gram Sabha will issue transit passes for bamboo; b)Gram Sabha will decide extraction level of bamboo and c) All revenue generated from bamboo (where FRA has not been implemented) will be shared with the local communities. He didn’t even mention “ownership”, let alone pass it on despite mentioning FRA.
And that is because his ministry has played a key key role in denying this right. Forget bamboo, ownership of none of the other items listed in the FRA - brush wood, stumps, cane, tussar, cocoons, honey, wax, lac, tendu or kendu leaves, medicinal plants and herbs, roots, tubers – has been passed on. Bamboo remained defined as a “tree” and not a MPF in the books of Ramesh and MoEF for ages. Now it is supposed to be a “grass”. Of course, other central ministries and the state governments are equally guilty.
One would be naïve to expect that everything will be alright now that the plan panel and Ramesh have woken up. And that is because even now they don’t acknowledge and haven’t passed on the legal entitlement. It is more for public posturing which will disappear once the Maoists go into a hiding and peace returns to the tribal belt of central India.
There is another crucial resource from which the tribals should be benefitting but don’t. It relates to “minor minerals”. PESA provided that “the recommendations of the Gram Sabha or the Panchayats at the appropriate level shall be made mandatory prior to grant of prospecting licence or mining lease for minor minerals in the Scheduled Areas”. The objective was for the tribal communities to have a say in mining such minerals and benefit from it. The plan panel hasn’t worked out the money involved but its senior officials said minor minerals would be worth a lot more than Rs 50,000 crore of annual trade in MPF. How exactly the tribals should benefit from the extraction of minor minerals like sand and pebbles, stones and chips, even limestone, should have been worked out by now.
Union and state governments continue to violate the law of the land
In the first week of this month, the planning commission said it had written to both the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) and the finance ministry to fix minimum support price (MSP) for “minor forest produce” (MFP). Environment minister Jairam Ramesh, in turn, said he was already on the job and had, in fact, even taken up the case with finance minister Pranab Mukherjee. At first glance, all these would seem a welcome change, a timely and appropriate move to empower the tribal communities, except that all of them and others in office are guilty of violating the law of the land for 15 long years.
The Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) bestowed “the ownership of the minor forest produce” on the tribal communities in 1996. Even while preparing and releasing its Integrated Action Plan for 60 Maoist-affected districts in 2010 (worth a little less than Rs 15,000 crore), the plan panel conveniently forgot to deal with MFP. This was despite the fact that it had, at the time, worked out that bestowing this ownership, which is their legal entitlement, would mean a whopping direct income of Rs 50,000 crore a year for the tribals.
If ever there was any confusion over the definition of MFP, the Forest Rights Act of 2006 removed it completely. It’s definition said: “Minor forest produce includes all non-timber forest produce of plant origin including bamboo, brush wood, stumps, cane, tussar, cocoons, honey, wax, lac, tendu or kendu leaves, medicinal plants and herbs, roots, tubers, and the like”. But see what Ramesh did on as late as March 21, 2011. He wrote a letter to all the chief ministers with a foreword: “I am now writing to you on a related issue of declaring and treating bamboo as Minor Forest Produce.”
Clearly, he hadn’t read the Forest Rights Act that listed bamboo first as MFP. His letter went on to say that the state governments and forest departments should now ensure, among other things: a) Gram Sabha will issue transit passes for bamboo; b)Gram Sabha will decide extraction level of bamboo and c) All revenue generated from bamboo (where FRA has not been implemented) will be shared with the local communities. He didn’t even mention “ownership”, let alone pass it on despite mentioning FRA.
And that is because his ministry has played a key key role in denying this right. Forget bamboo, ownership of none of the other items listed in the FRA - brush wood, stumps, cane, tussar, cocoons, honey, wax, lac, tendu or kendu leaves, medicinal plants and herbs, roots, tubers – has been passed on. Bamboo remained defined as a “tree” and not a MPF in the books of Ramesh and MoEF for ages. Now it is supposed to be a “grass”. Of course, other central ministries and the state governments are equally guilty.
One would be naïve to expect that everything will be alright now that the plan panel and Ramesh have woken up. And that is because even now they don’t acknowledge and haven’t passed on the legal entitlement. It is more for public posturing which will disappear once the Maoists go into a hiding and peace returns to the tribal belt of central India.
There is another crucial resource from which the tribals should be benefitting but don’t. It relates to “minor minerals”. PESA provided that “the recommendations of the Gram Sabha or the Panchayats at the appropriate level shall be made mandatory prior to grant of prospecting licence or mining lease for minor minerals in the Scheduled Areas”. The objective was for the tribal communities to have a say in mining such minerals and benefit from it. The plan panel hasn’t worked out the money involved but its senior officials said minor minerals would be worth a lot more than Rs 50,000 crore of annual trade in MPF. How exactly the tribals should benefit from the extraction of minor minerals like sand and pebbles, stones and chips, even limestone, should have been worked out by now.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Why MPLADS should be scrapped right away
Governance Now, April 1-15, 2011
MPs are supposed to make laws and policies, not run development schemes as a 150 percent hike in their fund would suggest
* Utilisation of MPLADS fund ranged from 37 percent to 52 percent during the last five years (2004-2009)
* 23 states/UTs had not inspected any work under the scheme during the last five years (2004-2009)
* 90 percent of district authorities did not maintain assets/works register
* 12 district authorities in six states showed advance released as ‘utilised’ in ‘utilisation certificate’, thus inflating expenditure figure
* 57 percent of completed works were not uploaded on the website of MPLADS
* Expenditure peaked during election time
These are some of the key findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) report on the performance of the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) for the five years between 2004-05 and 2008-09.
The report was released on March 18, 2011 – barely a week after finance minister Pranab Mukherjee announced a hike in the fund for each MP from Rs 2 crore to Rs 5 crore while winding up his reply on the budget in Lok Sabha. Of course he knew about the CAG’s stinging comments, for, he had hastened to add: “I have to add here that the CAG report has just been received and will be laid on the table of
house shortly. Concerns expressed therein will be addressed while formulating the guidelines for enhanced allocation.”
Quite apparently, the intention was to assert that everything was fine with the scheme except for some delivery-related issues which would be sorted out by suitably changing the “guidelines”. We will see how this is not quite so.
For one, Mukherjee probably didn’t read the CAG report carefully. The report strikes at the very roots of the scheme, it’s very raison d’être, which is “to enable MPs to recommend works of developmental nature with emphasis on the creation of durable community assets based on the locally felt needs”. The operating word here is “locally felt needs”.
Page 9 of the CAG report says: “Audit observed that the design of the scheme did not specify the mechanism to be adopted by an MP to ensure participation of the various constituents, such as active forums of residents, local bodies, NGOs etc in an MP’s constituency in determining and recommending works responsive to locally felt needs. There was no record to indicate that local requirements were considered by systematically with relative importance being explored and weighed properly. The process of selection of works lacked transparency and objectivity to that extent.”
There can’t be anything more damning. Eighteen years after the scheme came into existence the CAG says there is “no mechanism” in it to ascertain “locally felt needs”. CAG goes on to add that “in view of the fact that the absence of a monitorable and participatory mechanism to prioritize needs of the MP’s constituency
opened the scope of utilization of MPLADS on non-priority areas”. Various other government reports have shown how MPs simply go by their whims.
Not Their Job
When the scheme was launched in December 1993 by the P V Narasimha Rao government, it was aimed at enabling the MPs to “attend to small (developmental) things that remain unattended in their constituencies”, says Ram Naik, veteran BJP leader from Maharashtra who initiated the move after having successfully piloted
a similar scheme in his state in 1983.
This was later codified to primarily mean building durable community assets like drinking water, primary education, public health, sanitation and roads. Initially, Rs 1 crore was allotted for this, which was raised to Rs 2 crore later.
Right from the beginning, the scheme leader Somnath Chatterjee stood up in parliament at the time to say: “On principle, we are not accepting this proposal. This will mean only disturbing the priority which is decided by the district planning body.” He pointed out this was meant to sabotage local self-government bodies like the panchayats which had been empowered through the 73rd constitutional amendment passed earlier the same year. Empowerment of the municipalities followed next year by way of the 74th constitutional amendment. It may also be noted that that was the time of dismantling the licence-permit raj by the Narasimha Rao government. This meant a dent in the patronage peddling business of the MPs, which the MPLADS partially restored.
All the government’s expert panels that examined the scheme subsequently said it should be scrapped. Their basic objection was that the MPs were meant to formulate laws and policies, not run the development schemes, which, in turn, was the job of the executive. In 2002, the National Commission to Review the Working of Constitution (NCWRC) sought “immediate discontinuance of the MPLAD Scheme”, saying it was “inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution in many ways”. In 2005, the National Advisory Council (NAC) said “dispense with it” and give the funds “directly to the panchayats and municipalities”.
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) headed by the present law minister, M Veerappa Moily, said in 2007 in the “ethics in governance” chapter that “schemes such as MPLADS and MLALADS should be abolished”.
For years, the government ignored such remarks, pointing out that the constitutionality of the scheme was being examined by the supreme court. Then, on May 6, 2010, a five-member constitutional bench of the apex court, headed by the tehn CJI KG Balakrishnan, held it to be constitutionally valid. It said, among other
things, that:
(i) “Indian Constitution does not recognise strict separation of powers. The constitutional principle of separation of powers will only be violated if an essential function of one branch is taken over by another branch, leading to a removal of checks and balances” and,
(ii) “Even though MPs have been given a seemingly executive function, their role is limited to ‘recommending’ works and actual implementation is done by the local authorities. There is no removal of checks and balances since these are duly provided and have to be strictly adhered to by the guidelines of the Scheme and the Parliament. Therefore, the Scheme does not violate separation of powers.”
An emboldened government immediately sought a hike in the funds by Rs 3 crore, which the MPs, the only supporters of the scheme, had been demanding since 2006 in view of “inflation”. The planning commission refused it, saying there was no fund in the current five-year plan that runs till 2012. Mukherjee didn’t bother and announced the hike.
Systemic Shortcomings
True, there exists elaborate “Guidelines” - issued in 1994, 1997, 1999, 2002 and 2005 - to ensure transparency and accountability. But the CAG report says the scheme continues to be plagued by various shortcomings like diversion and misuse of funds, extremely poor monitoring, transparency and accountability etc.
Despite such pointers in 1998 and 2001, things have not changed. Worse, the near impossibility of bringing about a change is highlighted by none other than the December 2008 report of a Lok Sabha committee on MPLADS. For the record, the MPLADS fund goes directly to the district authority, which executes works recommended by the MPs, inspects, issues completion and utilisation certificates and also updates website of the ministry of statistics and programme implementation (MoSPI), especially designed for the purpose.
After going through persisting and glaring shortcomings in all these activities and failure of implementing its suggested measures, the Lok Sabha panel’s report says:
* The panel is “aghast” to find that the action taken reports (ATRs) on two performance audits of MPLADS submitted in 1998 and 2001 are overdue by 10 and seven years, respectively.
* The panel is “perturbed” to note that in certain cases no action could be initiated against erring officers for years, despite the fact that the issue was raised with the MoSPI “repeatedly” and “constantly”.
* The panel finds to its “utter surprise” that MoSPI simply kept writing letters and reminders to the state governments after being questioned.
* The panel was “shocked” by the response of the MoSPI that “no action can be taken against the officers responsible for violating the Guidelines”.
It went on to suggest that the scheme be turned into a “statutory” one with “penal provision” to punish recalcitrant officials of the states and the centre for proper
implementation. But there is an easier solution.
Dismantle It
The supreme court may have declared the MPLADS “intra vires” of constitution but that doesn’t, in itself, justify the scheme in any way. And that is because since the MPs’ job is “limited to recommending”
works, as the apex court rightly pointed out, they can do this without having to run a development scheme. They would do this better by attending the district level planning meetings, which they are supposed to but don’t.
In fact, when Somnath Chatterjee was told about the hike in the MPLADS fund, his reply was: “I will describe it in three words – unfortunate, if not tragic, and anti-democratic.” (see box)
After winning the mandate for the second time, Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar immediately dismantled MLALADS - a parallel scheme adopted by the states (even the corporators in Delhi and Mumbai have similar funds ranging from Rs 50 lakh to Rs 2 crore at their disposal) - on the precise ground that it isn’t the MLAs’ job to run a development scheme and that the scheme only increases scope for corruption (see box).
The advantages of dismantling the scheme are many. First to go is the elaborate monitoring and accountability system, saving precious manpower and manhours in the process which can be put to better use. Secondly, the MPs may then be forced to attend the district-level planning meetings. Thirdly, it would help in “devolution” of power to the local selfgovernment bodies, thereby fulfilling the mandates of the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments. So long as the MPs have their own funds to splurge, they have little incentive to honour this commitment. Fourthly, the corrupt system of patronage peddling will go.
Fifth, we save huge sums of money that can be put to better use, either to achieve the same goal or some other. An annual sum of Rs 5 crore to 790 MPs for a period of five years (minus the extra year for the Rajya Sabha members) means a princely sum of Rs 19,750 crore. This is good enough to, say for example, finance state-funding of elections. Ever since the Indrajit Gupta Committee came out with its formulations for the same in 1999, the government showed little interest, pointing out the futility of it all because of the “lack of funds”. Now that it forms a part of UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s fivepoint formula to check corruption, interest in the subject has revived.
***
‘Do away with it’
National Commission to Review the Working of Constitution (2002): “The role of a Member of Parliament must undergo some change as a result of Panchayat Raj institutions taking charge of some local matters. The MP LAD Scheme is inconsistent with the spirit of federalism and distribution of powers between the Union and the States. It also treads into the areas of local government institutions. The Commission recommends immediate discontinuance of the MPLAD Scheme as being inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution in many ways.”
Administrative Reforms Commission (2007): “Apart from infringing on the rights of the local governments, the most serious objection to the scheme is the conflict of interest that arises when legislators take up executive roles.”
National Advisory Council (2005): “Ideally, local area development needs should be determined and interventions made by the elected local governments. Therefore, MPLADS should be dispensed with, and these funds should directly go to panchayats and municipalities for the same purposes... This will ensure a substantial devolution to local governments. The local governments should own, manage, monitor and control all these new programmes and missions.”
***
What They Say
Jagdeep S Chhokar, former dean of IIM Ahmedabad: It is very unfortunate that instead of being abolished MPLADS fund has been increased to Rs 5 crore. In spite of the supreme court upholding the scheme - with due respect to the court - MPLADS is essentially unconstitutional and should have no place in a real and progressive democracy. It destroys the principle of separation of power, making members of legislature responsible for executive work which shouldn’t be their job. In addition, MPLADS is also a negation of the 73rd and 74th amendments.
N C Saxena, member of NAC: My view is to abolish it. An MP’s job is in the legislature, making laws and policies. Implementation is the executive’s work. MPLADS creates confusion between the legislature and the executive.
Somnath Chatterjee, former speaker of Lok Sabha: I will describe it in three words: unfortunate, if not tragic and anti-democratic. MPLADS is against and intended to upset state government and district plan for development. The MPs are being invited for participation in formulation of the district plans. They don’t go. They can disturb the planning process through their political considerations about which area to be developed and which not. They have political interests and I am sorry the state is providing the resources to further the same. As for the hike in MPLADS fund, it is amazing that the finance minister is taxing the hospitals on the one hand and is trying to pamper the MPs by a 150 percent increase on the other.
Ram Naik, former MP: It is a good move. Despite the five-year plan and annual budget, small things remain unattended... MPs and MLAs are elected institutions and they must have a say in development. They are better equipped to have a social overview than the local self-government bodies which
may differ with each other on some issues.
Anjali Bhardwaj, Satark Nagarik Sangathan: The crux of the problem is that the MPs don’t consult citizens on their needs. The guidelines don’t envisage this for identifying development needs of the people. And there is no system of people’s participation in monitoring and auditing these works.
***
Guidelines for MPLADS, 2005
• Public display of all completed and ongoing works with MPLADS funds at the district authority office and posted in the website for information of the general public
• The district authority should ensure that details of the work sanctioned are entered in the Input Format and uploaded in the MPLADS website (www.mplads.nic.in) or transmitted to the ministry of statistics and programme implementation for hoisting in its website.
• Two parliamentary committees on MPLADS to monitor the scheme
• MoSPI to monitor release of funds, cost of works, funds spent and also monitor receipt of completion reports, utilisation certificates and audit reports
• MoSPI website to carry complete details of each MP’s recommended works
• States/UTs to web hoist status of MPLADS on their respective states
• Photographic evidence for all works of Rs 5 lakh or more for web hoisting
• MoSPI to bring out annual report on implementation of MPLADS
• Review of implementation by divisional commissioners at state level
• Audit by CAG
• Physical monitoring by Nabard Consultancy Services (NABCONS)
***
Legislators' task is different
Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar scrapped local area development fund for Bihar legislators without much ado. The fact that he got support for this from all the political parties in the state counters the very logic of union finance minister Pranab Mukherjee’s move to raise the MPLADS fund from Rs 2 crore to Rs 5 crore
per year.
Time and again Nitish Kumar has made it clear that the task assigned to the legislators is entirely different. “They are supposed to lay down policies, make laws, recommend public works and supervise the executive,” he commented while explaining the distinct nature of functions assigned to the executive and the
legislature.
This is the precise reason why he asked all legislators to recommend works in their areas without
bothering about the fund. In his view, the agencies assigned with the task of development are
better equipped to take up such works and deliver maximum results.
Given the fact that Nitish Kumar won the fresh mandate on the basis of good governance and
anti-graft drives, it was befitting.
MPs are supposed to make laws and policies, not run development schemes as a 150 percent hike in their fund would suggest
* Utilisation of MPLADS fund ranged from 37 percent to 52 percent during the last five years (2004-2009)
* 23 states/UTs had not inspected any work under the scheme during the last five years (2004-2009)
* 90 percent of district authorities did not maintain assets/works register
* 12 district authorities in six states showed advance released as ‘utilised’ in ‘utilisation certificate’, thus inflating expenditure figure
* 57 percent of completed works were not uploaded on the website of MPLADS
* Expenditure peaked during election time
These are some of the key findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) report on the performance of the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) for the five years between 2004-05 and 2008-09.
The report was released on March 18, 2011 – barely a week after finance minister Pranab Mukherjee announced a hike in the fund for each MP from Rs 2 crore to Rs 5 crore while winding up his reply on the budget in Lok Sabha. Of course he knew about the CAG’s stinging comments, for, he had hastened to add: “I have to add here that the CAG report has just been received and will be laid on the table of
house shortly. Concerns expressed therein will be addressed while formulating the guidelines for enhanced allocation.”
Quite apparently, the intention was to assert that everything was fine with the scheme except for some delivery-related issues which would be sorted out by suitably changing the “guidelines”. We will see how this is not quite so.
For one, Mukherjee probably didn’t read the CAG report carefully. The report strikes at the very roots of the scheme, it’s very raison d’être, which is “to enable MPs to recommend works of developmental nature with emphasis on the creation of durable community assets based on the locally felt needs”. The operating word here is “locally felt needs”.
Page 9 of the CAG report says: “Audit observed that the design of the scheme did not specify the mechanism to be adopted by an MP to ensure participation of the various constituents, such as active forums of residents, local bodies, NGOs etc in an MP’s constituency in determining and recommending works responsive to locally felt needs. There was no record to indicate that local requirements were considered by systematically with relative importance being explored and weighed properly. The process of selection of works lacked transparency and objectivity to that extent.”
There can’t be anything more damning. Eighteen years after the scheme came into existence the CAG says there is “no mechanism” in it to ascertain “locally felt needs”. CAG goes on to add that “in view of the fact that the absence of a monitorable and participatory mechanism to prioritize needs of the MP’s constituency
opened the scope of utilization of MPLADS on non-priority areas”. Various other government reports have shown how MPs simply go by their whims.
Not Their Job
When the scheme was launched in December 1993 by the P V Narasimha Rao government, it was aimed at enabling the MPs to “attend to small (developmental) things that remain unattended in their constituencies”, says Ram Naik, veteran BJP leader from Maharashtra who initiated the move after having successfully piloted
a similar scheme in his state in 1983.
This was later codified to primarily mean building durable community assets like drinking water, primary education, public health, sanitation and roads. Initially, Rs 1 crore was allotted for this, which was raised to Rs 2 crore later.
Right from the beginning, the scheme leader Somnath Chatterjee stood up in parliament at the time to say: “On principle, we are not accepting this proposal. This will mean only disturbing the priority which is decided by the district planning body.” He pointed out this was meant to sabotage local self-government bodies like the panchayats which had been empowered through the 73rd constitutional amendment passed earlier the same year. Empowerment of the municipalities followed next year by way of the 74th constitutional amendment. It may also be noted that that was the time of dismantling the licence-permit raj by the Narasimha Rao government. This meant a dent in the patronage peddling business of the MPs, which the MPLADS partially restored.
All the government’s expert panels that examined the scheme subsequently said it should be scrapped. Their basic objection was that the MPs were meant to formulate laws and policies, not run the development schemes, which, in turn, was the job of the executive. In 2002, the National Commission to Review the Working of Constitution (NCWRC) sought “immediate discontinuance of the MPLAD Scheme”, saying it was “inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution in many ways”. In 2005, the National Advisory Council (NAC) said “dispense with it” and give the funds “directly to the panchayats and municipalities”.
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) headed by the present law minister, M Veerappa Moily, said in 2007 in the “ethics in governance” chapter that “schemes such as MPLADS and MLALADS should be abolished”.
For years, the government ignored such remarks, pointing out that the constitutionality of the scheme was being examined by the supreme court. Then, on May 6, 2010, a five-member constitutional bench of the apex court, headed by the tehn CJI KG Balakrishnan, held it to be constitutionally valid. It said, among other
things, that:
(i) “Indian Constitution does not recognise strict separation of powers. The constitutional principle of separation of powers will only be violated if an essential function of one branch is taken over by another branch, leading to a removal of checks and balances” and,
(ii) “Even though MPs have been given a seemingly executive function, their role is limited to ‘recommending’ works and actual implementation is done by the local authorities. There is no removal of checks and balances since these are duly provided and have to be strictly adhered to by the guidelines of the Scheme and the Parliament. Therefore, the Scheme does not violate separation of powers.”
An emboldened government immediately sought a hike in the funds by Rs 3 crore, which the MPs, the only supporters of the scheme, had been demanding since 2006 in view of “inflation”. The planning commission refused it, saying there was no fund in the current five-year plan that runs till 2012. Mukherjee didn’t bother and announced the hike.
Systemic Shortcomings
True, there exists elaborate “Guidelines” - issued in 1994, 1997, 1999, 2002 and 2005 - to ensure transparency and accountability. But the CAG report says the scheme continues to be plagued by various shortcomings like diversion and misuse of funds, extremely poor monitoring, transparency and accountability etc.
Despite such pointers in 1998 and 2001, things have not changed. Worse, the near impossibility of bringing about a change is highlighted by none other than the December 2008 report of a Lok Sabha committee on MPLADS. For the record, the MPLADS fund goes directly to the district authority, which executes works recommended by the MPs, inspects, issues completion and utilisation certificates and also updates website of the ministry of statistics and programme implementation (MoSPI), especially designed for the purpose.
After going through persisting and glaring shortcomings in all these activities and failure of implementing its suggested measures, the Lok Sabha panel’s report says:
* The panel is “aghast” to find that the action taken reports (ATRs) on two performance audits of MPLADS submitted in 1998 and 2001 are overdue by 10 and seven years, respectively.
* The panel is “perturbed” to note that in certain cases no action could be initiated against erring officers for years, despite the fact that the issue was raised with the MoSPI “repeatedly” and “constantly”.
* The panel finds to its “utter surprise” that MoSPI simply kept writing letters and reminders to the state governments after being questioned.
* The panel was “shocked” by the response of the MoSPI that “no action can be taken against the officers responsible for violating the Guidelines”.
It went on to suggest that the scheme be turned into a “statutory” one with “penal provision” to punish recalcitrant officials of the states and the centre for proper
implementation. But there is an easier solution.
Dismantle It
The supreme court may have declared the MPLADS “intra vires” of constitution but that doesn’t, in itself, justify the scheme in any way. And that is because since the MPs’ job is “limited to recommending”
works, as the apex court rightly pointed out, they can do this without having to run a development scheme. They would do this better by attending the district level planning meetings, which they are supposed to but don’t.
In fact, when Somnath Chatterjee was told about the hike in the MPLADS fund, his reply was: “I will describe it in three words – unfortunate, if not tragic, and anti-democratic.” (see box)
After winning the mandate for the second time, Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar immediately dismantled MLALADS - a parallel scheme adopted by the states (even the corporators in Delhi and Mumbai have similar funds ranging from Rs 50 lakh to Rs 2 crore at their disposal) - on the precise ground that it isn’t the MLAs’ job to run a development scheme and that the scheme only increases scope for corruption (see box).
The advantages of dismantling the scheme are many. First to go is the elaborate monitoring and accountability system, saving precious manpower and manhours in the process which can be put to better use. Secondly, the MPs may then be forced to attend the district-level planning meetings. Thirdly, it would help in “devolution” of power to the local selfgovernment bodies, thereby fulfilling the mandates of the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments. So long as the MPs have their own funds to splurge, they have little incentive to honour this commitment. Fourthly, the corrupt system of patronage peddling will go.
Fifth, we save huge sums of money that can be put to better use, either to achieve the same goal or some other. An annual sum of Rs 5 crore to 790 MPs for a period of five years (minus the extra year for the Rajya Sabha members) means a princely sum of Rs 19,750 crore. This is good enough to, say for example, finance state-funding of elections. Ever since the Indrajit Gupta Committee came out with its formulations for the same in 1999, the government showed little interest, pointing out the futility of it all because of the “lack of funds”. Now that it forms a part of UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s fivepoint formula to check corruption, interest in the subject has revived.
***
‘Do away with it’
National Commission to Review the Working of Constitution (2002): “The role of a Member of Parliament must undergo some change as a result of Panchayat Raj institutions taking charge of some local matters. The MP LAD Scheme is inconsistent with the spirit of federalism and distribution of powers between the Union and the States. It also treads into the areas of local government institutions. The Commission recommends immediate discontinuance of the MPLAD Scheme as being inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution in many ways.”
Administrative Reforms Commission (2007): “Apart from infringing on the rights of the local governments, the most serious objection to the scheme is the conflict of interest that arises when legislators take up executive roles.”
National Advisory Council (2005): “Ideally, local area development needs should be determined and interventions made by the elected local governments. Therefore, MPLADS should be dispensed with, and these funds should directly go to panchayats and municipalities for the same purposes... This will ensure a substantial devolution to local governments. The local governments should own, manage, monitor and control all these new programmes and missions.”
***
What They Say
Jagdeep S Chhokar, former dean of IIM Ahmedabad: It is very unfortunate that instead of being abolished MPLADS fund has been increased to Rs 5 crore. In spite of the supreme court upholding the scheme - with due respect to the court - MPLADS is essentially unconstitutional and should have no place in a real and progressive democracy. It destroys the principle of separation of power, making members of legislature responsible for executive work which shouldn’t be their job. In addition, MPLADS is also a negation of the 73rd and 74th amendments.
N C Saxena, member of NAC: My view is to abolish it. An MP’s job is in the legislature, making laws and policies. Implementation is the executive’s work. MPLADS creates confusion between the legislature and the executive.
Somnath Chatterjee, former speaker of Lok Sabha: I will describe it in three words: unfortunate, if not tragic and anti-democratic. MPLADS is against and intended to upset state government and district plan for development. The MPs are being invited for participation in formulation of the district plans. They don’t go. They can disturb the planning process through their political considerations about which area to be developed and which not. They have political interests and I am sorry the state is providing the resources to further the same. As for the hike in MPLADS fund, it is amazing that the finance minister is taxing the hospitals on the one hand and is trying to pamper the MPs by a 150 percent increase on the other.
Ram Naik, former MP: It is a good move. Despite the five-year plan and annual budget, small things remain unattended... MPs and MLAs are elected institutions and they must have a say in development. They are better equipped to have a social overview than the local self-government bodies which
may differ with each other on some issues.
Anjali Bhardwaj, Satark Nagarik Sangathan: The crux of the problem is that the MPs don’t consult citizens on their needs. The guidelines don’t envisage this for identifying development needs of the people. And there is no system of people’s participation in monitoring and auditing these works.
***
Guidelines for MPLADS, 2005
• Public display of all completed and ongoing works with MPLADS funds at the district authority office and posted in the website for information of the general public
• The district authority should ensure that details of the work sanctioned are entered in the Input Format and uploaded in the MPLADS website (www.mplads.nic.in) or transmitted to the ministry of statistics and programme implementation for hoisting in its website.
• Two parliamentary committees on MPLADS to monitor the scheme
• MoSPI to monitor release of funds, cost of works, funds spent and also monitor receipt of completion reports, utilisation certificates and audit reports
• MoSPI website to carry complete details of each MP’s recommended works
• States/UTs to web hoist status of MPLADS on their respective states
• Photographic evidence for all works of Rs 5 lakh or more for web hoisting
• MoSPI to bring out annual report on implementation of MPLADS
• Review of implementation by divisional commissioners at state level
• Audit by CAG
• Physical monitoring by Nabard Consultancy Services (NABCONS)
***
Legislators' task is different
Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar scrapped local area development fund for Bihar legislators without much ado. The fact that he got support for this from all the political parties in the state counters the very logic of union finance minister Pranab Mukherjee’s move to raise the MPLADS fund from Rs 2 crore to Rs 5 crore
per year.
Time and again Nitish Kumar has made it clear that the task assigned to the legislators is entirely different. “They are supposed to lay down policies, make laws, recommend public works and supervise the executive,” he commented while explaining the distinct nature of functions assigned to the executive and the
legislature.
This is the precise reason why he asked all legislators to recommend works in their areas without
bothering about the fund. In his view, the agencies assigned with the task of development are
better equipped to take up such works and deliver maximum results.
Given the fact that Nitish Kumar won the fresh mandate on the basis of good governance and
anti-graft drives, it was befitting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)