Don’t fiddle, dismantle MPLADS

Governance Now, edit, Oct 1-15, 2011

Ramesh’s prescription of social audit is no-brainer

Jairam Ramesh loves to hog the headlines and play to the gallery. This he did through his tenure as the environment and forests minister admirably and frequently without making an iota of difference to the pathetic watchdog’s job that the ministry has been doing. He is at it again, this time as the rural development minister. First he introduced a poorly drafted and self-defeating Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill of 2011 in the last parliamentary session  and then called a press conference to give credit to Rahul Gandhi for it. Now he has hit the headlines saying that the MPs are “not ready for the social audit of the MPLADS”. As it turns out, this was in retaliation to increasing criticism of his ministry’s flagship project, NREGS.

Now, it is common knowledge that NREGS suffers from various irregularities and has created little assets. Until June 30, 2011, the “social audit” of NREGS was a self-certifying work which helped only in keeping the irregularities under the carpet. If the outsiders like the civil society can today participate in any meaningful way in the social audit it has nothing to do with Ramesh. The change happened when he was still the minister for environment and forests. Given his previous track record, it is difficult to foresee him making any meaningful change to the functioning of his new ministry that squanders a huge amount of budget contributing precious little to improve life in rural India.

As for the MPLADS, social audit may be what is needed because, like NREGS, this scheme also has done little to justify its existence. In fact, a recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India struck at the very roots of the scheme saying that 18 years after the scheme was introduced there was just “no mechanism” yet to ascertain the “locally felt needs” that it is supposed to cater to. All the government-appointed bodies that examined it from time to time – National Commission to Review the Working of Constitution, the second Administrative Reforms Commission and National Advisory Council – have asked for dismantling it immediately because running a development scheme is not only not the job of the legislators, it undermines local self-government bodies that the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments tried to empower. Coming as it did soon after the economic reforms of 1991 that dismantled the license-permit raj and took away much of the discretionary powers of the MPs, the MPLADS was seen as partial restoration of their clientelist politics. As a former Rajya Sabha MP, Nilotpal Basu, said at a seminar recently, it was meant to bribe the MPs. When it was launched, the Narasimha Rao government was in a minority and had to survive by engineering the JMM bribery. And the recent hike in the fund made available to the MPs under this scheme, from Rs 2 crore to Rs 5 crore, came in the wake of a series of scams – IPL, Adarsh, 2G, CWG, Isro spectrum sale and others.

More than needing a social audit, MPLADS deserves to be scrapped altogether. That would have several advantages. Nearly Rs 20,000 crore that is put at the disposal of the MPs over a period of five years can then be put to better use. Without a fund to splurge, the MPs will be motivated to attend the district level planning, which they are supposed to but don’t because they have their own development scheme to run. It would also allow empowerment of the local self-government bodies that 73rd and 74th amendments intended. Dismantling the MPLADS will also mean putting to better use the official machinery needlessly engaged to monitor the scheme. Ramesh would be well advised to clean up his own stable and engage constructively with MPs, rather than indulging in petty nitpicking that serves no purpose.

Congress and vote bank quota

Governance Now, edit, Oct 1-15, 2011

Govt plans quota for Muslims, not development plans Sachar panel wanted
Union law minister Salman Khurshid announced on September 18 that the government was planning to bring in reservations for Muslims in educational institutions and government jobs. He didn’t provide details but going by his disclosure that the Andhra Pradesh model was being considered, it may be safely assumed that the plan is to provide four percent reservations for the religious minority group. So long as we continue with our policy of reservation as a means to empower the socially and economically backward segments of our society, there can be no argument against the latest move. After all, if reservations can be given on the basis of caste then why not on the basis of creed? And there is no denying that Muslims are one of the most backward communities in the country.

The reservation, however, is different. The Congress-led union government’s concern is not so much about improving the Muslim lot but to win their votes and thus, the next elections. It is vote-bank politics. That is why every now and then we have some group or other staging bandhs and blockades to press for a share in the reservation pie. The Jats enjoy reservation in some northern states but cut down water supply to Delhi a few months ago because they want reservation in union government jobs. The Gujjars of Rajasthan get reservation benefits as part of the OBC but want a larger share by being included in the list of the scheduled tribes. In Rajasthan, even upper caste Brahmins and Rajputs want reservation.

In 2004, the Congress-led UPA set up the Sachar committee to prepare a report on the social, economic and educational conditions of the Muslims. The committee suggested various welfare measures – more ‘regular’ schools, dedicated welfare funds, better representation in local bodies, better access to credit facilities, encouragement to mixed localities etc. Reservation was not one of those. The union government is yet to implement any of those measures (see interview with economist Abusaleh Shariff in this issue).
Instead, it set up the Ranganath Mishra commission which proposed 10 percent reservation for the Muslims and another five percent for other minority groups in education and government jobs. It is this measure Khurshid said his government was eager to implement, but only for the Muslims because they form a significant chunk of the vote bank (a little more than 13 percent of the population). With the looming UP assembly elections, chief minister Mayawati too is following the same path and has demanded reservations for the Muslims, as well as for the poor among the upper castes.

In January 2009, the Kerala high court made an interesting observation while dealing with the state government’s move to provide a quota for the poor students from the forward castes in educational institutions. The court said it was time to bring down the reservation in both government jobs and educational institutions because the socio-economic condition of the beneficiaries – scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes – had undergone “revolutionary” changes and that it was also time to “awaken these communities from the slumber of satiated insouciance”. While the revolutionary changes the court talked about may be relevant to the discourse on the conditions of the targeted groups in that particular state, or those of the neighbouring states, but not for the entire country, reservation has been turned into a political sop nobody is willing to give a second look at.

There are far better ways of achieving genuine and lasting improvement in the socio-economic conditions of the underprivileged. Access to quality education and vocational training, access to easy credit facilities for setting up private business, access to good health care and civic infrastructure etc are some of these measures. As we argue in our cover story, Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi has achieved remarkable success in improving the lot of everyone, including the Muslims, through such measures. Reservation only increases the hunger for more handouts without fundamentally altering those conditions that necessitate it in the first place.

This is NIA. Wonder why we can't beat terror?

Governance Now, Oct 1-15, 2011

The most exasperating aspect of terror strikes in our country is the perpetrators’ supreme confidence. They had, in a way, issued a warning on May 13 by putting a bomb at the Delhi high court’s parking lot. It didn’t kill anyone and the matter was casually dismissed by our security and intelligence agencies as a ‘minor’ incident. And then they revisited the spot on September 7, killing 15 and injuring more than 50, and sent not one but four separate emails to claim responsibility. One of these mails even warned of an impending strike at a shopping mall. Is the office of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), probing both the incidents from a rented office in the Supreme Forum mall of Jasola in southeast Delhi, their next target? It could well be so. 

You want to know the secret of their confidence? Read on.

Politicisation of Terror

Barely three weeks after the ghastly 26/11 terror strike that killed 260 people, the government enacted the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act 2008 to set up NIA as a tool to fight terror. Its mandate was “to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of State, friendly relations with foreign States and offences under Acts enacted to implement international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions of the United Nations, its agencies and other international organisations and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto” as home minister P Chidambaram himself outlined it at the end of the bill.

There have been several terror strikes since then – at German Bakery of Pune in February 2010, at Chinnaswamy stadium of Bangalore in April 2010, firing on foreigners outside Delhi’s Jama Masjid in September 2010, at Dashashwamedh Ghat of Varanasi in December 2010, at Zaveri Bazaar and elsewhere in Mumbai in July 2011 and two blasts outside the Delhi high court in May and September 2011. These strikes are believed to be the handiwork of the usual suspects – HuJI, SIMI, IM and so on.

NIA is the obvious choice to take up these cases, you would think. But wait. Except for the Delhi high court blasts, these terror attacks are not probed by it.

You would wonder what NIA is doing then, apart from probing the Delhi high court blasts. Well, it is probing the terror cases that happened before it came into existence: the Malegaon blast of September 2006, Samjhauta Express blasts of February 2007, Ajmer Sharif blasts of October 2007, Modasa blast of September 2008 and the Sunil Joshi murder case of December 2007.

Why so? Look closely for answer. All these latter cases are suspected to be the handiwork of the ‘saffron’ terrorists.

There you are. NIA is, primarily, tasked to probe the ‘saffron’ terror.

No, you are not wrong to assume that NIA has been turned into a political tool already, something that has happened with all our police and intelligence agencies too. So, what would you expect when the BJP or BJP-led coalition comes to power? Turn NIA on its head. Won’t it?

Just see how electoral (or vote bank) politics determines even our fight against terror.

The Jammu and Kashmir assembly (whose new session begins from September 26) has admitted a resolution seeking “amnesty” for Afzal Guru, who was awarded death sentence in 2004 for his involvement in the 2001 attack on our parliament. Recently, the home ministry asked the president to reject his mercy petition pending since 2006. The HuJI, in its mail, said the attack on Delhi high court was in retaliation to this.

In August, the Tamil Nadu assembly passed a “unanimous resolution” appealing the president to “reconsider” the mercy petition of the Rajiv Gandhi killers – Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan. Around the same time, the Madras high court stayed their execution. Ram Jethmalani, the BJP MP who pleaded their case, was quoted as saying afterwards: “The high court is doing justice. Be sure.”

This followed yet another similar episode. In May this year, the president rejected mercy petition of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar of Khalistan Liberation Force – sentenced to death for the 1993 Delhi blast that was targeted at Youth Congress leader Manjit Singh Bitta – hours after the supreme court issued notices on a writ petition questioning a long delay in his execution. Various Sikh bodies now want the Punjab assembly to request the “commuting” of his death sentence. Politicians cutting across party lines have joined the chorus.

Recall how, when Digvijaya Singh, twice chief minister of Madhya Pradesh and Congress general secretary, had to criticise Pakistan for harbouring Osama bin Laden after the Abbottabad operation in May this year, he had to add an honorific ‘ji’ while referring to the dreaded terrorist (“Osamaji”).

More recently, a day after the September 7 blast, former defence minister who was chief minister of UP several times, Mulayam Singh Yadav declared in Delhi without any apparent provocation: “Whenever there is a terror act, a particular community is looked at with suspicion. This is not good. It should stop. It is dangerous.”

Also recall how the BJP-run state governments dragged their feet when it emerged that the ‘saffron’ terror was behind some of the terror incidents like the Malegaon and Samjhauta Express blasts. This was one of the reasons why NIA was given the job to “reinvestigate” those cases. (And that is also why the BJP-ruled states are not cooperating with NIA in investigations.)

With so much politics at play and so many politicians and political parties willing to defend even the confirmed and convicted terrorists, any wonder the terrorists are having a free run in this country?

9/11 and 26/11
What did the US do after 9/11? They appointed a National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the US and took a comprehensive look at the failures, institutional and otherwise. The report ripped apart the security and intelligence mechanisms of the US, described the Congressional oversight mechanism as “dysfunctional” and suggested radical changes. The changes were brought in –a new Department of Homeland Security with overarching and wide range of powers, a tough Patriot Act, more teeth to the FBI and so on. This highly critical and unsparing report was made public and is available in bookshops across the world.

Compare this to our 26/11. It was the state government which appointed the Pradhan committee to go into it, but with a limited mandate – “lapses to act on intelligence inputs”, “lapses to promptly act or react” by the Mumbai police and “to make appropriate recommendations”.  It was assumed from the very beginning that 26/11 was the failure of the state police alone. There was no need to probe into the role of any other agency or agencies – state intelligence unit, central intelligence agencies like Intelligence Bureau (IB), Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), Joint Investigation Committee (JIC) or enforcement agencies like Coast Guard, National Security Guard (NSG) and the naval commandos (involved in fighting the terrorists before NSG stepped in) etc.

And the results of even this limited exercise of the Pradhan committee were not made public. After the report was leaked to the media, a Marathi version of it was tabled in the assembly. As for acting on its recommendations, no change has been noticed on the ground.

We simply don’t have a culture of introspection, accountability or taking the responsibility for such gross failures that the US agencies did and hence, are better placed to add teeth to their counter-terror activities.
Chidambaram, who replaced Shivraj Patil as home minister after 26/11, did initiate some measures at the centre. Here is a low down on these measures:

* The Multi-agency Centre (MAC) was set up under the IB’s supervision. Its mandate is to “pull” more information and intelligence from state capitals and “push” more information and intelligence into the security system.

This is a duplication of what the JIC, functioning under the National Security Advisor (NSA) in the PMO, is supposed to do. Those in the know say MAC meets every day and is “slowly taking shape”. But it has made no visible or discernible difference yet to the fight against terror. More on this later.

* NIA was set up. As noted above, it has been turned into a political tool. Moreover, instead of creating a new infrastructure of its own, the agency has borrowed manpower from various state police, central intelligence agencies and paramilitary forces. Close to half of its investigators are from the central paramilitary forces with no experience and training in investigation.

* A “security meeting” was started on a daily basis. The NSA, home secretary, RAW secretary, IB director, JIC chairman and special secretary (internal security) of MHA attend this meeting.

* NATGRID is being set up to provide “quick, seamless and secure access” to 21 sets of database available with government departments. The cabinet gave its clearance only in June this year and it is expected to be operational next year.

Former home secretary G K Pillai, who played a significant role in developing the new security architecture, says it should have come up a year ago but didn’t, because “no one is willing to part with information. They (concerned departments and agencies) are used to a culture of telling only when asked, not otherwise”.

* A National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) is proposed to be set up. This would be a body under the MHA and perform “functions relating to intelligence, investigation and operations”. All intelligence agencies would be represented in NCTC. In fact, it will have NIA, NTRO (National Technical Research Organisation), JIC, NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau), NSG, NATGRID and CCTNS (Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems) within its fold.

RAW, ARC (Aviation Research Centre) and CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) will function under its “oversight” and representatives of intelligence agencies of the armed forces will be its members.

The whole concept, and even the very title of NCTC, is a direct lift from the 9/11 Commission report. Chidambaram banks a lot on this to achieve his goal – “to disrupt, dismantle and eventually defeat the terrorist groups”. Close to three years since 26/11, NCTC is still at the drafting stage.

Reason? Pillai says: “There are issues of territory, turf and ego between departments.” This is self-explanatory.


* A Central Foreigners’ Bureau (CFB) has been proposed to keep a tab on undesirable foreign elements. This is a long term project – four to five years – for which more than Rs 1,000 crore is needed. There is little information about its progress.

* A separate department or ministry for “internal security” has been proposed. Chidambaram wanted to recreate the US Department of Homeland Security. Nothing has been heard on it since he last spoke about it in December 2009.

Ajai Sahni, a counter-terrorism expert and executive director of the New Delhi-based think tank Centre for Conflict Management, has this to say on Chidambaram’s biggest anti-terror tool, NCTC: “We don’t need super bureaucrats discussing (security issues) in New Delhi. We need operational intelligence and coordination. NCTC will be as useless as JIC. We need NCTC when there is (adequate) flow of intelligence from the ground.”

His prescription: “Our basic need is to create intelligence and operational capabilities at the grassroots level.” 

Pillai provides some startling facts and figures. He says, our police forces need 18,00,000 more personnel to reach the target of 230 policemen for every 1,00,000 population. Our national average at present is a pathetic 130/1,00,000.

IB needs 4,500 personnel. The government recruited 800 personnel in 2009 (that is the number we can handle at a time for the purpose of their 18-month training). These 800 personnel will go to the field, after completing their training, this year and it will take three to five years for them to develop sources.

His conclusion? “Our intelligence level is still the same as that existed in 2008 (before 26/11).”

Terror strikes in the UK and US prompted their intelligence agencies to focus their attention on suspicious segments of society, carry out extensive community contact programmes that continue till date, carry out extensive surveillance, identify and isolate suspicious elements and develop quick response teams. These steps paid rich dividends. We haven’t attempted any of these.

A former joint director of IB, M K Dhar, says the problem with our intelligence agencies is that they have very little assets in susceptible communities where homegrown terror modules live and thrive.

To make matters worse, he says, the moment a raid happens or an ‘encounter’ takes place in a Muslim-dominated area, various human-right groups, NGOs and political parties jump in and make life miserable for our security forces.

There are other systemic issues too – lack of transparent and merit-based recruitment and arbitrary posting and transfer of police personnel.

It is too well known that no government recruitment takes place without paying money anywhere in the country. (“Corruption starts with the very appointment of the policeman”, says Pillai.) The National Police Mission Division (NPMD) of the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) devised a transparent recruitment policy, which cuts out “discretionary powers” of the politicians, and the home ministry circulated it to all state governments. Only UP followed it and recruited 19,000 personnel last year. UP has also set up a Civil Service Board, supposedly independent of the political masters, to regulate posting and transfer of police officers in the state. But the average tenure of an SP in the state is four months.

That is so, because orders come to the board directly from the chief minister’s office and it complies.
Having paid money for the job and living at the mercy of politicians day in and day out, cops can hardly be expected to do justice to their job. Moreover, their primary job is to maintain law and order and VIP security. Intelligence comes third in the list of priorities for which little time or resources are available.

“Why is the law and order situation bad in the country?” asks Pillai, before answering it himself: “Because no officer can be held responsible or accountable if he is not in control of his force.” He adds that accountability exists and works in our armed forces because the officers themselves decide these matters.

Dark World of Intelligence
Our intelligence and security agencies live and work in complete secrecy. They don’t exist or work outside some inaccessible files. Every possible thing that one probably needs to know about the US Department of Homeland Security or FBI – mandate, mission, budgets, ways and means to interact and inform or know about terror threats and terrorists – is available on their websites. Ours simply don’t exist.

The US Congress has an oversight committee to review, monitor and supervise functioning of their intelligence and security agencies. The 9/11 Commission report said this about its functioning: “Congressional oversight for intelligence – and counterterrorism – is now dysfunctional. Congress should address the problem. We have considered various alternatives….” (Congress is to the US what parliament is for us).

Can you think of a similar mechanism or report in India? Sahni says that to expect accountability in intelligence agencies when there is “not even a rudimentary accountability” in any government department is foolish. He draws attention to how even a constitutional body like the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) came under fire from the government, no less than the PM himself, for exposing 2G, CWG and ISRO Spectrum scams. Our intelligence and other security agencies are reporting to the very same politicians.

Here is a secret revealed. CAG submitted a special audit report exposing massive corruption in NTRO and actions of its officials leading to compromise with national security to the PMO in February this year. This happened because of a whistleblower, V K Mittal, and a daring CAG, Vinod Rai. The PMO, instead of acting on it, constituted another probe and entrusted the task to RAW chief Sanjeev Tripathi. Tripathi recently returned the brief, expressing his inability to probe the matter. All that the PMO officials now say is that it is an “unfortunate development”.

Dhar says he and other like-minded people have been demanding parliamentary oversight over our intelligence and security agencies, just as it exists in the US. Vice president Hamid Ansari made an impassioned plea for setting up a parliamentary standing committee to make intelligence agencies accountable to the legislature while addressing the R N Kao Memorial Lecture in January 2010. Manish Tewari of the Congress has moved a private member’s bill in this regard too, but there is little political will to make it happen.

Now you know the secret of terrorists’ supreme confidence: An overdose of politics even when it involves confirmed and convicted terrorists and complete absence of accountability and transparency in our governance system.


Box 1
Chidambaram’s new architecture
Multi-agency Centre (MAC): Part of IB and meets every day. Its job is to “pull” more information and intelligence from state capitals and “push” more information and intelligence into the security system.

Daily security meeting: Home minister takes this meeting every day, around noon, which is attended by NSA, home secretary, secretary (RAW), DIB, chairman of JIC and special secretary (internal security) of MHA.

NCTC: The proposed body to take NIA, NTRO, JIC, NCRB, NATGRID, CCTNS and NSG under its wings. RAW, ARC and CBI to be under its oversight. Intelligence units of the armed forces will have its representation too. It will be part of the MHA.

NATGRID: to provide “quick, seamless and secure access” to 21 sets of data base available with government departments.

NIA: Established in December 2008 to investigate terror cases.
Central Foreigners’ Bureau: To monitor foreign nationals

Old and existing architecture

Intelligence elements: IB (reports to HM), RAW (reports to PM), JIC, NTRO, ARC (report to NSA), National Security Council Secretariat (reports to NSA).
Armed forces have their own intelligence agencies and an umbrella body, DIA.
Agencies specialising in finanacial intelligence – directorates in Income Tax, Customs and Central Excise, Financial Intelligence Unit, Enforcement Directorate.
Enforcement elements: CRPF, BSF, CISF, ITBP, Assam Rifles, SSB, NSG.
Administrative elements: MHA, PMO and cabinet secretariat

Toothless Tiger
Terror cases with NIA
1. Delhi high court blasts, May and Sept 2011
2.    Malegaon blast, Sept 2006
3.    Samjhauta Express blasts, February 2007
4.    Ajmer Sharif blasts, October 2007
5.    Modasa (Gujarat) blast, September 2008
6.    Sunil Joshi murder case, December 2007

All except the first happened before NIA came into existence and which are suspected to be the handiwork of ‘saffron’ terror groups. And in none of these cases the state governments are cooperating with NIA.

Terror cases not with NIA1.    German bakery blast of Feb 2010
2.    Blasts at Chinnaswamy stadium, Bangalore, April 2010
3.    Firing at foreigners outside Jama Masjid, Sept 2010
4.    Blasts at Dashashwamedha Ghat, Varanasi, Dec 2010
5.    Mumbai blasts of July 2011

In none of these saffron terror groups are suspected to be involved but happened after NIA came into being.

Tantra

The word tantra, which is generally derived from the root “tan”—to spread, is difficult to define as it loosely admits of very wide latitude of meaning.
The scriptures declare that “Hum” the formula perexcellence of the great void known as
the thunderbolt because of its adaptablity and hence adamantine nature is the vital word
of divine emancipation revealed in the vajrayana school of Buddhist thought & assimilated
into Hinduism through the tantras. It is the key word designating the meditating Buddha
“Aksobhya” because of his imperturbable nature. Quite early in the history of the great
vehicle (Mahayana) feminine divinities found their ways in the pantheon. One such was
prajnaparmita, the perfection of insight, the personification of the qualities of the
Bodhisattva.

Later the Buddhists and Bodhisattvas, who were thought of as males, were
like the gods of Hinduism, endowed with wives who were the active aspect, the “force”
or “potent” (sakti) of their husbands. The God was believed to be transcendent and aloof,
while the Goddess was active in the world; thus the God might be best approached
through the Goddess. The productive activity of the divine was thought of in terms of
sexual union an idea as old as the Rig Veda with the spread of these ideas sexual
symbolism and even sexual intercourse as a religions rite were incorporated into the
schools of both Hinduism and Buddhism.
With these ideas was combined a new magical mysticism. The lesser vehicle
(Hinayana) taught that release was obtained by the gradual loss of individuality through
self-discipline and meditation; the Great vehicle (mahayana) added that the grace and
help of the heavenly Buddha’s and Bodhisattvas assisted the process.
Vajrayana
The followers of the new teachings taught that it could be best attained by acquiring magical power, which they called vajra (“Thunderbolt” or “diamond”). Hence the new school of Buddhism was called Vajrayana the vehicle of the Thunderbolt. In the 7th century Hiuen sang found certain monasteries permeated with magical practices.

The chief divinities of the new sects were the “Saviouresses” (Taras), the spouses
of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. There were also a host of Lesser divinities, many
called by the names of demons, such as “out caste women” (matangis) “demonesses”
(pisacis) “Sorceresses” yoginis and “she-ghouls” (dakinis). The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas
with their Taras were approximated to the less amiable members of the Hindu pantheon,
and were often depicted with many arms in ferocious poses.

Tantra
As in the days of Brahmanas, it was though that these deities should be compelled
rather than persuaded. The text books outlining the means (Sadhana) of doing this were
called Tantras and hence the new cult is often referred to as tantric.

By pronouncing the right formula (mantra) in the correct manner, or by drawing the correct magical symbol (Yantra), one might force the gods to bestow magical power on the worshipper and lead him to the highest bliss.

Among the many formula of tantric Buddhism, one is specially famous- the “six syllable” (sadaksara) OM MANI PADME HUM- “Ah ! the jewel is indeed
in the Lotus !” may be sexual in its original significance, mystically repeating the divine
coitus of the heavenly Buddha and prajnaparamita and of Avalokitesvara and his Tara.

Tantric Buddhism did not neglect the techniques of mental training which were part
of all chief religions of India, but their direction was altered. Their primary purpose now
was to obtain super normal power. The meditations of the Vajrayana were often positively
psychopathic.

The practitioner of the system might so hypnotize himself as to imagine
that he was reborn from the womb of a Tara, or he himself might become Tara, to kill his
father the Buddha and take his place.
In sexual union with a female devotee he and his partner would become Buddha and Tara or he himself might become Tara. In the sexual rites of tantric Buddhism all taboos were lifted. Even incest was permitted; for what was sin to the ignorant was virtue to the initiate and so as well as ritual copulation meat and alcohol were indulged in at the tantric covens. These things were however done under strict control and only by initiates at sacred ceremonies.
The tantric Buddhism (Vajrayana) flourished in the time of Bhauma-karas. The
Bhanjas of Baud (Khinjali mandala) were their feudatories who showed their loyalty to
Bhauma rule. Therefore this cult was extended to Khinjali mandala with Baud as its chief
center. The findings of Buddhist antiquities and monuments in Baud region clearly indicate
the existence of tantric cult.

Courtesy Orissa government site....Tantric Buddhism in Bauda and its Development

Postcards from the Republic of Hunger

March 29, 2010, Governance Now
People of Balangir district of the infamous KBK region of Odisha want food, not government schemes to provide food

Starvation deaths and Orissa have become synonymous. It does not raise eyebrows anymore. Nobody loses sleep over them, least of all the local administration. A series of reports has appeared in a national daily pointing out that about 50 people have perished to hunger in Balangir (one of the three districts infamous as KBK, along with Korapur and Kalahandi) alone in the past two to three years. Not even a perfunctory inquiry has been ordered. The local media has, more or less, ignored the tragedy. If at all, the issue is being debated by civil society groups but the bone of contention is that the figure might be exaggerated. The state human rights commission has made a bold move to visit the affected areas but its report will take some time.

A quarter of a century ago, when starvation deaths first shook the nation’s conscience, big plans were made and a lot of money was pumped in to provide food and reduce poverty in the KBK region. A long-term action plan (LTAP) was made, which was then rechristened with some modification as a Revised LTAP plan. Then came the Biju KBK plan. The KBK districts were reconstituted into eight districts to improve administration. All that planning is meaningless now because all that has been done on paper. There is nothing on the ground to show.

The KBK region continues to languish in poverty, particularly Balangir. A huge chunk of population migrates out every year in search of work. Though there are no official records, civil society groups put the figure at 100,000 (of a total population of about 15 lakh). Most of them go to Andhra Pradesh to work at brick kilns. They go half-fed, suffer from various diseases because of poor nutrition and die young. According to Umi Daniel of a non-governmental agency, Aide et Action, South Asia, who studies problems of migration and related issues, the average life expectancy of the migrants is 40 years.

The government has various schemes to ensure that nobody goes hungry. Subsidised ration is provided to BPL and APL families. Then there are ICDS, mid-day meal scheme, Antyodyaya Anna Yojana and Annapurna Yojana to take care of the needy. But a large number of these migrants, who qualify as BPL families, don’t get any benefit. The BPL list has not been updated since 1997. No BPL also means they are denied other benefits like pension for widows (one has to fill in the BPL card number in the form), Indira Awas Yojana and other such schemes. The food-for-work carried out under the KBK plan has been discontinued. Work under NREGS is hard to come by because the average number of days of work is less than half the mandatory 100 days. And since the migrant families are mostly landless and the state has poor irrigation facilities, it is that much harder for them to work in the fields as farm labourers. Months leading to the monsoon are, therefore, the toughest to survive.

The central government may be working towards a right to food bill but these migrants of Balangir are doomed to die young--to disease and starvation, thanks to an inept government and years of negligence and absence of alternative sources of employment.

Ramesh’s mea culpa is a sham

Column, Governance Now, May 16-31

The list of his own illegal actions is pretty long
Under pressure for permitting projects in violation of environment and forest laws, minister Jairam Ramesh played the victim the other day.

He said: “I am completely against regularising an illegality. But sometimes I am forced to. A steel plant has been built or a power project has been constructed… violations are detected afterwards. I cannot shut them down. Hundreds of crores (of rupees) are invested. There are livelihood issues.”

He went on to add: “A violation of law has to be prevented at the start. It is very difficult to correct it later. They become fait accompli and sometimes there is little option but to look for a compromise. I have had to make compromises on some projects.”

Sounds good as far as confessions go but Ramesh deceives here too.

Here is how.
Ramesh says a violation has to be prevented at the start. But he didn’t do so in case of the Posco project. The project is yet to take off. Two enquiry teams he sent said the forest rights had not been granted to the project-affected people and, hence, clearance should be withheld. He did the opposite and cleared it for the ‘third’ time on May 2.

His defence was: (a) “Faith and trust in what the state government says is an essential pillar of cooperative federalism”, (b) that “it was at my personal insistence that in August 2009, the ministry of environment and forests made adherence to the Forest Rights Act, 2006 an essential pre-requisite for allowing diversion of forest land” and (c) “I was under no obligation or pressure to do so except my own commitment to FRA, 2006”.

Ours is not a banana republic as Ramesh seems to suggest. Project clearances are governed by a set of laws, including the FRA. He is not obliged, he is “bound” to uphold law of the land. He took this oath while being inducted into the council of ministers.

For his benefit, it should be pointed out that section 4(5) of the FRA says “no member of a forest dwelling scheduled tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till the recognition (of forest rights) and verification procedure is completed.”
He knows very well that the Orissa government has not implemented forest rights in Posco area. He admits as much. Yet, instead of insisting on compliance of the law, he is justifying his illegal approval.

Similar is the case with the Polavaram project in Andhra Pradesh. Ramesh himself admitted in his clearance letter that the FRA had not been implemented by Andhra Pradesh and two neighbouring states to be affected – Orissa and Chhattisgarh.
If he had to issue a ‘stop order’ later, it was because of public pressure. On his part, he violated the law.

In the latest case, he has lifted ‘stop work’ on the Maheshwar dam in Madhya Pradesh on specious grounds that chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan told him verbally that the rehabilitation and resettlement (RR) had been slow “because the project-affected people have begun to think that the dam project will not be completed on account of the MoEF’s rigid stance”.

In the same order, he mentions thrice that the state government’s claims that 70 percent of RR is complete “are not at all convincing”.
Ramesh also points out how non-compliance of RR requirement violates various legal requirements and the supreme court’s specific orders. But all these don’t stop him from taking the only legal recourse left to him, that is, withholding the clearance.

He is right when he says he is “forced to” make “compromises”. But he forgets violation of law is a criminal offence. He is guilty of both allowing the past illegalities and committing fresh ones. His oath of office requires him to stand up and uphold the rule of law. By not doing that he has failed the constitution as well as the people he is supposed to serve.

The sad part is such gross violations don’t attract criminal prosecution in our system.

prasanna@governancenow.com

MSP for minor forest produce: 15 years too late and other write ups

governancenow.comGovt continues to violate law
April 04 2011

At first look, the attempt by both the planning commission and the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) to press for fixing the minimum support price (MSP) for “minor forest produce” seems a timely and appropriate step to empower the tribals.

But both seem to have missed the simple fact that they have been violating the law of the land for 15 long years.

The Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act bestowed “the ownership of the minor forest produce” to the tribals way back in 1996.
Even while preparing and releasing its Integrated Action Plan (IAP) for 60 Maoist-affected districts in 2010 (a little less than Rs 15,000 crore), the planning commission conveniently forgot to deal with the minor forest produce.

The irony is that the planning commission itself had calculated at the time that the ownership of the minor forest produce to the tribals mean Rs 50,000 crore a year for them.

If the government were to follow the law and hand over the minor forest produce the tribals would be richer by Rs 50,000 crore.
There is little hope that even the present exercise of fixing the MSP will come to fruition anytime soon.
Recall environment minister Jairam Ramesh’s letter to the chief ministers on March 21, 2011. He said: “I am now writing to you on a related issue of declaring and treating bamboo as Minor Forest Produce.”

Ramesh hasn’t read the law. The Forest Rights Act of 2006 defines “minor forest produce” as: ““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”.

Bamboo, at least since 2006, is a minor forest produce. But Ramesh went on to say in his letter that the state government and forest departments would 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.
Had Ramesh read FRA of 2006 and PESA of 1996, his language would have been different. He would have passed the “ownership” of bamboo to the tribals. He didn’t even mention “ownership”.

And that is because his ministry has been denying this right to the tribals for the past 15 years. Forget bamboo, ownership of none of the other items as FRA listed out - brush wood, stumps, cane, tussar, cocoons, honey, wax, lac, tendu or kendu leaves, medicinal plants and herbs, roots, tubers – have been passed on.

For the record, bamboo remained defined as a “tree” and not falling in the list of minor forest produce in the books of Ramesh and his predecessors for ages.

Of course, the state governments are equally to be blamed.

But this public display of activism by the planning commission and Jairam Ramesh is more for publicity purpose.

There is another crucial resource from which the tribals should be benefitting but have denied. It relates to “minor minerals”.

PESA of 1996 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 obvious objective is that the tribals should benefit. The planning commission hasn’t calculated the annual trade in minor minerals but safely assume it to be more than that of minor forest produce, which would mean at least another Rs 50,000 crore a year.

How exactly the tribals benefit from extraction of minor minerals (like mining of sand and pebbles, stones, chips, even limestone etc) should have been worked out by now. Should there be a 50-50 share of revenue between the tribal communities and the government? Or should it be some other formula? Fifteen years is a long time.

It only goes to establish that the government continues to be the biggest exploiter of the tribals (don’t forget, the government has displaced and destitute thousands of tribals by handing over their land to private companies through out the country). The Maoists, in turn, are exploiting the situation to achieve their goal – an armed overthrow of the government.

***

Did the Narasimha Rao government sanction Purulia arms drop?
The union government must come clean after Times Now expose

April 29 2011


Sixteen years after the mysterious Purulia arms-drop case of 1995, which the successive union governments have kept under wraps, an investigation by Times Now television channel has made a sensational disclosure, which is yet to be verified, that it was an official operation sanctioned by the then Narasimha Rao government.

The disclosures are based on public declaration of the two prime accused, Kim Davy and Peter Bleach, both of whom were on the Latavian aircraft Antonov An-26 that dropped more than 300 AK 47 assault rifles and a million rounds of ammunition close to an Anandmarg ashram in Purulia district of West Bengal. They have also produced documents, named some top bureaucrats involved in its planning and execution to back up their claims

According to them, Indian intelligence agency RAW joined hands with the British intelligence agency MI5 at behest of the Indian government to organise the arms dropping. The purpose was to help the Anandmargis start an anti-communist insurgency in West Bengal and destabilise the Left Front government.

Bleach is a former British special force officer involved in legal arms supply. Davy claimed to have worked with the Anandmargis and moved by the atrocities of the West Bengal government on innocent people of the state and joined the operation.

Some of the other key revelations they make are as follows:

· A member of parliament from Bihar, Pappu Yadav, was in touch with the conspirators. It was he who arranged for Davy’s escape in his official car to Nepal from where Davy flew to Copenhagen, Denmark’s capital, where he has been living ever since. Yadav is in the Tihar, serving life imprisonment in a murder case.

· A senior CBI officer, J K Dutt, was also part of the conspiracy. He was at Pappu Yadav’s residence in New Delhi when Davy reached there on his way out to Nepal. Dutt subsequently investigated the case and did his best to cover up the tracks. Dutt denied the charge.

· Former CBI director Joginder Singh claimed that when he tried to probe the case he was discouraged by the political establishment.

· Davy claimed to have been living openly in Copenhagen, giving interviews freely and that these were part of the court proceedings in India but the CBI all along maintained that it had no idea about his whereabouts. He claimed the Indian government never wanted to bring him back to India until very recently. Denmark has now agreed to his deportation, which he doesn’t want and hence the disclosures on Times Now.

· The Air Force cooperated in the case by allowing the aircraft, flying in from Pakistan and belonging to a front organisation of the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, by shutting off its radars at Kalaikunda airbase close to the arms drop zone and elsewhere. It was on record before the court that the radars had been switched off for the night.

· MI5 had sent three communications to RAW warning about the arms drop, after Bleach said he informed MI5 about it, as it was required by the established procedure in the UK. It is not fully clear why Bleach informed MI5 as he alleged the agency was in the know (was it because the alleged involvement was at the level of an individual official rather than the entire agency?). The warning was forwarded by the union government to West Bengal on “registered post” close to the event. The communication reached after the incident, as it was intended. The communication was sent by joint secretary in MHA Shanti Prakash, who later retired as Tripura’s chief secretary.

· Bleach claimed he wanted to give the full story to the Indian court but he was prevented from it. He was later given a presidential pardon during the NDA regime, along with other Latavian crew in Indian jails.

· Both claimed that details of the case never came to public domain because the Indian government and its intelligence agencies have much to hide.

· Pappu Yadav’s father is associated with the Anandmargis. He, however, denied any knowledge of the conspiracy or involvement of the Anandmargis.

· The union government has blocked all information on the subject through the RTI, claiming it to be a matter of national security.

Precisely because it involves grave security issues, the union government must come out clean.

We have similar instances of complicity of the state in letting criminals off. Union Carbide chief Warren Anderson was escorted out of the country at the behest of the union and Madhya Pradesh governments after the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy.

Much later, Ottavio Quattrocchi, an Italian businessman close to the Gandhi families and an accused in the Bofors case, was allowed to go out of India and during the last UPA regime, his accounts abroad, in which he had received Bofors payoff, were de-freezed.

Intelligence failures led to not only the Kargil war but also the 26/11 Mumbai attack.

The Purulia case is even more serious because it points to complicity and collusion of the Indian government and its various agencies. It also points to the machinations of the union government in destabilising a state government by trying to engineer internal strife and armed conflict.

These are very serious charges and unverified yet. Since these charges are made by two prime accused in the case, it requires an official inquiry to establish the truth and the findings of this inquiry should be shared with the people.

***

State of unlearning

edit, Governance Now, Aug 1-15, 2011

Why Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand get statehood but not Telangana, Vidarbha or Gorkhaland 
If you are following the statehood debate over the decades, the chances are bright that you will never figure out why certain regions like Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand get statehood but not Telangana, Vidarbha or Gorkhaland—the demand for which is as old, as justified on political, cultural and developmental grounds and equally violent. Or for that matter, how Mamata Banerjee is able to bring cheers to the agitated hill people of West Bengal in a matter of days, single-handedly and without promising statehood, but the same doesn’t or may not happen in a dozen-and-half more regions where similar discontent and aspirations simmer for decades. You will also find it difficult to understand why a political party supports statehood demand for a region at a particular point of time but not at another. Given the fact that demands for separate statehood have persisted primarily because of poor or bad governance, you would expect the political leadership to work out a rational response after taking a comprehensive view. But it doesn’t. The approach is always ad hoc.

Why blame the present political leadership alone. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were openly in favour of linguistic basis for reorganising the states until the partition trauma of 1947. Then they changed their stand. Nehru put the issue on the back burner; he had more pressing issues to attend to. But then Potti Sriramulu went on a hunger strike demanding a united Telugu-speaking Andhra Pradesh in October 1952. Nehru ignored him until it was too late. Fifty-eight days after fasting, Sriramulu died, sparking a violent protest. Nehru panicked and as a consequence, the first state was carved out on the basis of language a year later. The state reorganization commission came about thereafter. Language determined many states but not all. In north, Hindi-speaking belt was divided into four states—Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.

The same panic reaction was evident in the way UPA-II reacted to Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief K Chandrasekhar Rao’s fast in November 2009. When Rao’s health deteriorated, the union cabinet held an emergency meeting and announced that the process of forming the state would begin. But ditered and set up the Justice Srikrishna Committee to look into the issue. The committee didn’t favour division of Andhra Pradesh and the matter hangs there. The BJP, the other major political player which played a crucial role in the formation of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand in 2000, too did a flip-flop. First it supported and then changed its position at ally Chandrababu Naidu’s instance.

In between 1953 and 2000, several new states came into being—Haryana in 1966, Himachal Pradesh in 1971, Goa in 1987 and a few others in northeast. Was there any grand design behind any of these? And if so, will that help answering the demand for Telangana, Vidarbha, Gorkhaland, Bodoland, Baghelkhand or Mayawati-supported demand of dividing UP into three states—Bundelkhand, Harit Pradesh and Purvanchal? The answer can’t be ‘yes’. The government of the day realises that the basic problem is that of governance but is either incapable or unwilling to do anything about it. Therefore, the second obvious option—setting up a second states reorganisation commission to take a holistic view and formulate appropriate response—finds no takers. It is feared that this option would provoke more such demands being made. That leaves the third option before us: Mamata Banerjee-like sincerity and generous grant of power and funds for the development of the troubled regions. The fourth option is really a no option: forced by the circumstances. This leads to a prolonged strife (as in the case of Telangana), loss of life and properties and wasted opportunities. Think it over. The costs are too high in our present approach.

Sen and sensibility

edit, Governance Now, Sept 1-15, 2011


Probity and accountability calls for  change in the way higher judiciary is appointed and disciplined

It was a rare and historic sight when Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta high court stood up to defend himself in Rajya Sabha on August 17. For the second time in independent India a member of the higher judiciary was facing impeachment proceedings – the only way an errant judge can be removed from office. The last time it happened was way back in 1993, when a supreme court judge, Justice V Ramaswami, faced impeachment but escaped unpunished because the ruling Congress party decided to ignore serious corruption charges against him and abstained from voting to defeat the move of the opposition parties. If the move succeeds this time, as is evident from the manner in which the impeachment motion was carried in Rajya Sabha, Justice Sen would become the first one to be thus removed from office to which he clings on despite two grave charges against him – one, he misappropriated money in his custody as a court-appointed receiver and two, he misrepresented facts about this misappropriation before the Calcutta high court. Three different inquiries – an in-house inquiry by the high court, an inquiry by three supreme court judges and a judges inquiry committee appointed by the Rajya Sabha chairman – found him guilty. Yet, when Justice Sen stood up to defend himself, he pleaded that he should not be made a “sacrificial lamb” in the name of cleansing the judiciary.

Sadly, the rarity of impeachment proceedings against a judge does not suggest impeccable integrity of the higher judiciary. Many serious corruption charges have come to be made against many of the members in recent times. Justice Sen himself pointed out two – provident fund scam of the Allahabad high court and Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab and Haryana high court for whom a briefcase containing Rs 15 lakh was delivered wrongly at the residence of another judge. He didn’t mention Justice P D Dinakaran, who was accused of land grabbing and worse but continued for many years as chief justice of Karnataka and Sikkim high courts, tried to scuttle inquiry against him and then resigned on July 29 this year, a day before an inquiry committee appointed by the Rajya Sabha chairman was to begin its probe against him. A few days later, he even sought to withdraw the resignation but the government put its foot down. Even more scandalous is the contempt case pending before the apex court after senior advocate Prashant Bhushan publicly alleged that half of the past 16 to 17 chief justices of India were corrupt.

The rarity of impeachment proceedings rather reflects failure of the system to discipline the higher judiciary and bring accountability and transparency in their working. Impeachment is particularly tough to succeed as it requires fulfillment of stiff conditions -  a motion has to be moved by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members, following which an inquiry committee has to confirm the charges and then the support of a majority of members of both houses of parliament is required to pass the motion. It is tricky too, as was evident in Justice Ramaswami’s case, because politicians in power are wary of antagonising higher judiciary.  In the present case, the Bahujan Samaj Party voted against Justice Sen’s impeachment. Fortunately, it did not change the outcome.

Needless to say, there is an urgent need to change the present system of not only disciplining the higher judiciary but also the manner in which they are appointed. For the first, parliament must take up and pass the pending Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, which envisages simplifying the process to act against errant judges, without delay. The bill does require modifications to make the proposed oversight mechanism provided in it to be truly independent and effective. Similarly, there is a need to rethink on the collegium system of appointing higher judiciary, which is an opaque and in-house process in which judges appoint themselves. Its failure is evident in both the appointment of Justice Sen to the Calcutta high court and in its recommendation to elevate Justice Dinakaran to the apex court. Their misconducts predated these moves by the collegium. The answer could be found in setting up an independent judicial commission, a proposal which has been debated for years but no government has shown enough courage to actually set it up. These two moves will go a long way in addressing most of the issues.

The spy who nailed NTRO

Governance Now Sept 1-15

And paid a heavy price for exposing wrongdoings in the intelligence agency
So far you have heard or read of the ones who blew the whistle on corruption in various government schemes or projects. But here is a whistle-blower with a difference. Vinay Kumar Mittal blew the whistle on one of our premier intelligence agencies – the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), a technical intelligence agency to provide early warnings about evolving threats, which was set up in the aftermath of intelligence failure in Kargil.

The NTRO has been in the news in recent months for all the wrong reasons – tapping phones of political leaders, buying unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) worth Rs 450 crore which are now lying as junk, buying satellite communication system from a blacklisted foreign company, compromising communication security, irregularities in recruitment of more than 100 personnel and misuse of official positions and secret service funds and so on. Much of it is largely due to this upright spy’s relentless drive to expose its wrongdoings.

Here is something unique about his endeavour. All our intelligence agencies work outside public scrutiny and institutional oversight, even that of parliament, and are not subject to auditing of their accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). In a first of its kind exercise, the CAG carried out a special audit and confirmed the irregularities Mittal pointed out. In reply to an RTI (right to information) query from him, the CAG, on June 28, said: “Audit team has noticed various irregularities in appointments of employees and procurements by NTRO.”

The CAG’s report was submitted to the PMO in February this year. It was marked ‘top secret’ and is yet to be tabled in parliament. The PMO though has ordered a probe into NTRO’s affairs, a task entrusted to Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief Sanjeev Tripathi.

Of course, he had to pay a price. He was repeatedly humiliated, eventually leading to his premature retirement in 2008, seven years ahead of time. Threats and physical intimidations have been routine. But then who says it is easy to take on an intelligence agency directly controlled by the PMO? But the spy fights on. The battlefield has now shifted to the supreme court where his petition seeking to make the CAG report public, among other things, is pending.
***
Mittal comes across as a proud and unruffled man. Sitting in his Ghaziabad home, he recalls the heady early days of the NTRO. Back in 2003, it used to be called the National Technical Facility Organisation (NTFO) and he was one of the five founding members (along with the first chairman R S Bedi) who developed the organisation’s vision documents. There was no place to sit and no time to sleep. The team worked from the corridor of a hired building with borrowed furniture. He formally joined the NTRO as centre director (in joint secretary scale) of the Centre for Communication Application in February 2005, nearly a year after the NTFO was formally rechristened and notified as NTRO. Earlier, he had worked as a scientist in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and RAW, dealing with communication, across platforms and technologies.

Mittal says things started falling apart after July 2006, when Bedi retired and KVSS Prasad Rao took over as chairman. This saw the entry of M S Vijayaraghavan, a former DRDO scientist, as advisor. “Rao was a decent man but ineffective. He was like prime minister Manmohan Singh under whom Vijayaraghavan grew up to become A Raja,” he says, indicating that it was Vijayaraghavan who created much of the mess in the NTRO.

He couldn’t help questioning and protesting against many of the irregularities he found in the new regime but it was the UAV deal that finally led to his premature retirement.

The deal had been signed with an Israeli firm in late 2006 with the approval of the cabinet committee on security (CCS). In March 2007, Mittal noticed three disturbing developments: the Israeli firm was behind the schedule, there were deviations in systems specifications but payments were being released by NTRO.

Things came to such a pass that though he was found to be right in his objections, he was eased out of the project and was replaced with a junior. Later, he was issued a reprimand for objecting too much. When he protested, the chairman rebuked him: “You’re very rigid and uncompromising. You’ve to be flexible.”

Then came the final straw. In May 2008, Vijayaraghavan called up Mittal’s deputies and asked them to report directly to him. And then, one fine day his official vehicle was withdrawn to complete his humiliation. He quit, seeking voluntary retirement. On October 1, 2008, he was relieved from service.

Things continued to go wrong on the UAV front. Sometime in late 2008 and the beginning of 2009, the NTRO placed additional orders for sensors on the UAVs at the cost of Rs 150 crore but without the CCS clearance, which should have been the case, from the same vendor. As the NTRO chairman had the power to sanction only up to Rs 20 crore, payments were made in small instalments.

Meanwhile, 26/11 happened and Mittal was recalled to the NTRO “with the assurance of full functional freedom” to implement the rest of the communication programmes he had conceptualised while preparing the NTRO’s vision documents. (This was his second recall, the first one being in July 2008, which lasted a day). He joined NTRO on July 13, 2009 but resigned a month later because, as he put it, “I was not happy with the mass scale corruption, violation of rules, favouritism and nepotism in NTRO.”

Thereafter, from September 2009, Mittal started filing RTI applications about the NTRO on recruitment, procurement, misuse of official positions and security violations. He also started writing to the CAG, prime minister, home minister, finance minister, central vigilance commissioner (CVC), CBI and anyone he could think of with the RTI replies he received.

Only the CAG responded in November 2009. The CAG, Vinod Rai, wrote to the then national security advisor (NSA) M K Narayanan seeking audit of the NTRO as the agency directly functioned under him.
The NSA first denied the permission, following which, Mittal says, Rai threatened to withdraw his (CAG’s) consent for exempting NTRO from auditing (which had been given in October 2004 as is the practice with exempted entities). The NSA consulted the prime minister and agreed for the audit.

The audit started in January 2010 and continued for a year. The report was submitted to the NSA in February this year.

In March 2011, Mittal went to the Delhi high court with the RTI replies because he had received no response from the authorities he had complained to with a view to fix accountability of the NTRO. That is when everything started coming into the public domain.

The high court, however, disposed of his petition by a neutral order, going by the government’s reply that the CAG had inquired into the NTRO affairs and that disciplinary action had been initiated against Vijayaraghavan and others.

But he was not satisfied. In the meanwhile, on June 28, he received a reply from the CAG confirming the irregularities. Emboldened, he approached the supreme court, praying that the CAG report be made public. “How else would the accountability be fixed? The CAG report has gone to the NSA under which it functions and it has not been tabled in parliament yet. So, I prayed that either the CAG report be tabled in parliament or be submitted to the court,” Mittal says.

On August 16, the apex court heard the matter and expressed its unhappiness at the manner in which the government and then the high court had dealt with the matter. It asked the government to file a fresh action taken report and the report of the inquiry committee the PMO had set up. Notices were issued to the PMO, NTRO and CVC to explain their positions and said it would take up the CAG report issue in its next hearing in mid-September.

“I am very happy with the court’s response. This is what I have been waiting for,” was how Mittal reacted to the development. Now he is waiting for the next hearing, hoping that his long fight will finally bear fruit. n

The standing of standing committees

Governance Now, Sept 16-30, 2011

Going by their recent behaviour, parliamentarians seem to set little  store by committees and procedures
When, during Anna Hazare’s indefinite fast at the Ramlila grounds, Team Anna suggested that the Lokpal bill be immediately taken up by parliament for debate and passage, it provoked a huge uproar. The politicians seemed aghast. For the next few days, the nation was lectured on the “supremacy” of parliament and sanctity of the “parliamentary procedure” because, as they pointed out, the bill was pending with the standing committee at that point. Any suggestion to bypass this parliamentary committee, they suggested, was not only unthinkable but decidedly blasphemous. Soon the attack on Team Anna reached a new height and their movement was condemned as “undemocratic”, “unconstitutional” and “anti-parliamentary”, among other things.

In the run-up to the August 16 fiasco – when the 74-year-old Gandhian was picked from Mayur Vihar and lodged in the Tihar – the government had, in fact, dismissed disdainfully Team Anna’s pleas to expedite the process of legislating the Lokpal. They were asked to take their pleas to the standing committee.
How justified was this hullabaloo over the parliamentary procedure and standing committees? Let us take a closer look.

Mandate of standing committee
To start with, the parliamentary standing committees came into being in 1993 for overseeing the functioning of various ministries and departments of the union government and examine bills pertaining to those ministries and departments.

But must each and every bill go to the standing committee before it is debated and passed by parliament? The simple and clear answer is: No. It is entirely at the discretion of the presiding officers of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to send any bill to the standing committee. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of both the houses are unambiguous.

Rule 331H of the Rules of Procedures and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha says, “the Committee shall consider only such bills introduced in either of the houses as are referred to them by the chairman, Rajya Sabha or the speaker” (emphasis added). Exactly the same language has been used in Rule 273 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States.

And how sacrosanct is a standing committee report on a bill? One answer is that it is not binding on parliament at all.

Rule 331N of Rules of Procedures and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha says, “The report of the standing committees shall have persuasive value and shall be treated as considered advice given by the committees” (emphasis added). The same words are used in the Rajya Sabha rule book (Rule 277).

Second answer is, there are any number of standing committee reports which have been ignored by parliament in the past without a second thought. If we consider the Lokpal bill, there have been three standing committee reports on it so far – submitted to parliament in 1996, 1998 and 2001. The latest bill, ninth one in the past 43 years to be introduced in parliament, has been referred to a standing committee for the fourth time. If you count a couple of times it was sent to the joint select committee in 1968 and 1985, this would be for the sixth time a parliamentary panel will examine this particular bill.

There is more.
The speaker, who sent the latest Lokpal bill to the standing committee, has over-riding powers to suspend any rule. Rule 388 of Rules of Procedures and Conduct of Business of Lok Sabha says, “Any member may, with the consent of the speaker, move that any rule may be suspended in its application to a particular motion before the house and if the motion is carried the rule in question shall be suspended for the time being” (emphasis added). The implication of this is that if the speaker wants he or she can use the discretionary power not to refer the Lokpal bill to the standing committee and ask the house to debate and pass it. This has happened in the past in connection with several much more sensitive bills. But more on this later.

Standing committee on Lokpal
Now that the bill has been sent to the standing committee let us see who the members of this committee are (see box 4). Lalu Prasad of the RJD is one. He has been in and out of jail for more than a decade in connection with the fodder scam (worth about Rs 900 crore) and may soon be arrested and sent to jail once more. Amar Singh is another. He is one of the prime accused in the cash-for-vote scam and was sent to the Tihar just as we were going to the press. Manish Tewari is yet another member, who described Anna’s fast as “tyranny of the unelected and unelectable” and then accused Anna to being corrupt “from head to toe”. He then apologised and withdrew his accusation and then withdrew himself from the standing committee too. But his party has decided to continue with him. 

The committee is headed by Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Congress spokesman and a lawyer who has a habit of picking up the wrong causes. Recently, he took up the brief for a lottery operator of Kerala but had to withdraw under mounting pressure from his party men in that state. Earlier, he represented Vedanta group in the environment tribunal when the primitive Kondh tribes of Orissa protested against a wholly illegal clearance given for mining bauxite deposits of the Niyamgiri hills in violation of their forest rights. The clearance was later withdrawn by the union government after it was found that the Vedanta had misrepresented facts and that the clearance was indeed in violation of several environment and forest laws and rules.

Can these members be expected to do justice to the anti-corruption mechanism?

Conflict of interest
On December 20, 2010, National Social Watch Coalition (NSWC), a New Delhi-based think tank released a shocking study. It showed a large number of MPs with business interests are not only getting into parliament, but are also getting into the standing committees dealing with subjects of their business interest.
Imagine, MPs running medical education institutes in the standing committee on health; industrialists-turned-legislators sitting in the committees on finance, industry and public accounts (see box 2). Whose interest will they be protecting and promoting – people or their own private interest?

This raises a serious issue of conflict of interest. The Rajya Sabha did create a “register of members’ interest” recently to make members register their “pecuniary interest” but this register was not made available to the public.

Any wonder the standing committee proceedings are not open to media or public viewing? Every time the issue was raised, parliamentarians cut across party-lines to oppose it.

Protecting the corrupt
One of the key elements of the Lokpal bill is about its power to prosecute the corrupt. The central vigilance commission (CVC), touted as an answer to corruption in high places in the 1990s and which has supervisory powers over the CBI, was rendered completely useless because it was made an ‘advisory’ body, without any power to prosecute the corrupt.

While this is not a secret, shocking statistics emerged on August 23, 2011, when a New Delhi-based think tank, Asian Centre for Human Rights, released its report, “The Lokpal debate – lack of accountability, not Anna Hazare’s fast, should be the focus”. The report says the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 has failed because the government simply doesn’t give sanctions to prosecute the corrupt public servants.

The study says, in the past 14 years (between 1996 and 2009), only 1,348 of an astounding 77,925 corruption cases registered and forwarded by the CVC were given sanctions for prosecution. This works out to a mere 1.73 percent of the total. No government in these years, be it the UPA or NDA, was keen to bring to justice the corrupt officials (see box 3). How many actually got to be convicted and punished is a matter of conjecture, the report adds. It would be interesting to watch if the power to prosecute the corrupt is retained in the case of Lokpal by the standing committee and then adopted by parliament.

Scant respect for committees, procedures
Much has been made about parliament’s legal sovereignty and its right to make laws. Just how good it is was laid bare by a 2006 study titled, “The Indian Parliament as an Institution of Accountability”. It was carried out by Devesh Kapur, then associate professor at Harvard, and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, then a JNU professor. Published by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, the study says: “The federal government budgets of 1999, 2001, 2002 and 2004 were all passed by parliament with virtually no scrutiny or debate despite the fiscal deficit climbing to alarming levels.”

Did anyone then raise an issue of standing committee or sanctity of parliamentary procedures? No.

A few more examples will remove all doubts. On March 11, 1991, 17 bills were passed by Lok Sabha in a couple of hours (see box 5). What kind of parliamentary oversight would have gone into it is anybody’s guess.

Then again on December 23, 2008, eight bills were passed by Lok Sabha in 17 minutes flat (see box 5). Many of these bills had not been referred to the standing committees. A critical one was that of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2008, which provided forfeiture of property of corrupt public servants. It was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 19 and passed on December 22. It is another matter that it lapsed with the 14th Lok Sabha since it was not passed in the upper house.

A few days earlier, on December 16, another important bill which brought to existence the National Investigation Agency (to prevent 26/11-type terror attacks) was introduced in the lower house, which passed it the next day. The upper house passed it a day later. It never went to the standing committee.
It reminds one of the draconian and much abused anti-terror law, POTA, which replaced another draconian and much abused TADA. POTA was brought in by way of an ordinance twice by the BJP-led NDA government. On third attempt, the Rajya Sabha rejected it. The government convened a special joint session of parliament to pass it in March 2002. That legislation too never went to any standing committee.

Talking about the efficacy of standing committees, Kapur and Mehta make some scathing comments. Their study says, “First, it is a simple fact that parliament itself tends to ignore the reports of its committees. Most committee reports are not tabled for deliberation and discussion in parliament at all…Second, the internal composition of parliamentary committees militates against their becoming more effective agents at disciplining the executive and contributing to legislative business”.

While admitting that despite limitations the standing committees can provide disciplinary oversight of government, the report adds, “However, by paying little heed to the numerous CAG reports highlighting all manner of problems, parliament has crippled a critical tool in enforcing accountability. Consequently, the CAG’s strictures have little import”.
One more point.

Guillotined
After budgets are presented, standing committees examine demands for grants of the ministries and departments, after which it is debated and voted in the Lok Sabha. Demands not discussed by the Lok Sabha are put to ‘guillotine’ on the last day of the budget session for immediate disposal. Here are some shocking details about the last (14th) Lok Sabha, taken from the Lok Sabha’s website.

Demands for grants of 52 ministries/departments for the financial year 2004-5, in the form of bills, were guillotined. The figure for 2005-6 stood at 48 bills; for 2006-7, 50 bills; for 2007-8, 49 bills and for 2008-9, 51 bills.

With so much respect in evidence, talks of the parliament’s “supremacy” and sanctity of “procedure” by the parliamentarians and their pet intellectuals don’t really mean much. Or does it? n


Box 1
How bill becomes law
A bill, which is a draft of the proposed legislation, passes through three stages before it is submitted to the president for assent. After the president’s assent, it is notified in the gazette and becomes a law. These stages that the bill passes through are called “three readings” of the bill.

Three readings of the bill: In the first reading, a bill is just “introduced” in either of the houses, except when it is opposed on the grounds of constitutionality or jurisdiction and a statement can be made by the member opposing it but no debate takes place.

The second reading consists of two stages. The first stage constitutes discussion on the principles of the bill and its provisions generally on any three motions – that the bill be taken into consideration; or that it may be referred to a parliamentary committee (at this stage the standing committee comes in) or that the bill be circulated for eliciting public opinion. The second stage consists of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The standing committee’s recommendations come in here and is either accepted or rejected in part or in toto. Amendments can be moved at this stage. Each amendment and clause is put to the vote. The amendments become part of the bill if voted in favour.

The third reading is for passing the bill, as amended. A general debate takes place at this stage. Only formal, verbal or consequential amendments are allowed at this stage.

After a bill is passed by one house it is sent to the other house and the process is repeated.
Once cleared by both the houses, the bill is sent to the president. The bill becomes law after the president’s assent.

Box 2
Conflict of Interest
Details from the report of the National Social Watch Coalition (NSWC), New Delhi-based think tank, that indentified MPs with conflicting interests and was released on Dec 20, 2010 (the term of the committees was to last till Aug 31, 2011):

Standing committee on health
At least three members run medical education institutions - Prabhakar B Kore, BJP MP from Karnataka who is chairman of the Karnataka Lingayat Education Society running 18 medical science institutions; MAM Ramaswamy of JD(S), Rajya Sabha MP from Karnataka, who is pro-chancellor of Annamalai University running medical institutions; and Wardha’s Cong MP Datta Raghobaji Meghe, who is president of Radhikabai Meghe Memorial Medical Trust managing a deemed university, the Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences.

Standing committee on finance
The members are virtually who’s who of industry: Venture capitalist Rajeev Chandrasekhar (Ind) from Karnataka, business magnate Y S Jaganmohan Reddy, Maharashtra-based Vijay Darda (Cong), Sambasiva Rayapati and industrialist Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy (Cong) from Andhra Pradesh.
Standing committee on industry

The members include UP businessman Akhilesh Das (BSP) as chairman; perfume baron Badruddin Ajmal (AUDF) of Assam and Andhra Pradesh textile manufacturer Gireesh Kumar Sanghi (Cong). In all, 9  out of 26 are from business and industry.

Public Accounts Committee
It has members like industrialist Navin Jindal (Cong), Andhra Pradesh-based contractor Kavuri Sambasiva Rao (Cong) and Tamil Nadu educationist M Thambi Durai (AIADMK).

Box 3
Governments love the Corrupt
Last month, prime minister Manmohan Singh told parliament, “Our government is committed to fight against corruption.” Does he really mean it? The records seem to suggest otherwise.

The latest annual report of the apex anti-corruption watchdog, the central vigilance commission (CVC) says that by June 30, 2011, “44 cases were pending sanction for prosecution from various ministries and departments of the Government of India.” Some of these are pending for more than two years, the report points out.

A few examples of officers against whom corruption charges have been registered but prosecution sanction is pending: Baldev Singh Sandhu, commissioner of income tax, Ahmedabad; Sanjay Tripathi, joint commissioner of income tax, Bangalaore and Mumbai; Col F B Singh, joint director, ministry of defence and Manoj Malviya, additional commissioner, civil aviation.

But more shocking revelations have come from the Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR). In its report, “The Lokpal debate- lack of accountability, not Anna Hazare’s fast”, released on August 23, 2011, ACHR says successive union governments have protected the corrupt public servants in the past 14 years.
The report says, between 1996 and 2009, CVC registered 77,925 cases of corruption against public servants and sought permission for prosecution. But permission was granted only in 1,348 cases – a mere 1.73 percent of the registered cases.

All the governments in these 14 years – be it the United Front government, the NDA or the UPA – have been equally protective of the corrupt.

The report also points at a disturbing trend. The number of corruption cases being registered by the CBI is falling over the years. In 1990, CBI registered 1,116 cases which came down to a mere 731 cases in 2010. It goes on to comment, “What is disconcerting is the reduction in the number of cases registered by the CBI despite the common knowledge of increasing corruption, both in numbers and size, in the post-liberalisation period.”

Box 4
Members of Standing Committee on Lokpal
Abhishek Manu Singhvi (Cong), Parimal Nathwani (Ind), Shantaram Naik (Cong), Ram Vilas Paswan (LJSP), Amar Singh (Ind), Ram Jethmalani (BJP), Balavant alias Bal Apte (BJP), O T Lepcha (SDF), Chandresh Kumari (Cong), Lalu Prasad (RJD),  D B Chandre Gowda (BJP), Shailendra Kumar (SP), Kirodi Lal Meena (Ind), Harin Pathak (BJP), N.S.V. Chitthan (Cong), Deepa Dashmunsi (Cong), Jyoti Dhurve (BJP), Monazir Hassan (JD(U)), Devji M Patel (BJP), S Semmalai (AIADMK), Vijay Bahadur Singh (BSP), Prabha Kishore Taviad (Cong),Manish Tewari (Cong), R Thamaraiselvan (DMK), P T Thomas (Cong) and Meenakshi Natrajan (Cong). (As on 5.9.11)

Box 5
17 bills in 2 hours
Following bills passed in Lok Sabha in two hours on March 11, 1991
1.     The Appropriation (Railways) Vote on Account Bill, 1991
2.     The Appropriation (Railways) Bill, 1991
3.     The Appropriation (Railways) No 2 Bill
4.     The Appropriation (Vote on Account) Bill, 1991
5.     The Appropriation (No 2) Bill
6.     The Appropriation (No 3) Bill, 1991
7.     The Finance Bill, 1991
8.     The Punjab Appropriation Bill, 1991
9.     The Assam Appropriation (Vote on Account) Bill, 1991
10. The Assam Appropriation (No 2) Bill, 1991
11. The Tamil Nadu Appropriation (Vote on Account) Bill, 1991
12. The Tamil Nadu Appropriation Bill, 1991
13. The Jammu and Kashmir Appropriation (Vote on Account) Bill, 1991
14. The Jammu and Kashmir Appropriation (No 2) Bill, 1991
15. The Pondicherry Appropriation (Vote on Account) Bill, 1991
16. The Constitution (75th Amendment) Bill, 1991
17. The Salary, Allownaces and pension of Members of Parliament (Amendment) Bill, 1991
 
Eight bills in 17 minutes
1. The Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, Bill, 2008
2. The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2008
3. The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority Amendment Bill, 2008
4. The Compensatory Afforestation Fund Bill, 2008
5. The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) UT Order (Amendment) Bill, 2007
6. The South Asian University Bill, 2008
7. The Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill, 2006
8. The Collection of Statistics Bill, 2007.

Anna’s pathshala: In democracy, people are ‘king’

August 23 2011, governancenow.com

Sadly many still don’t understand this simple truth

Anna has baffled most politicians, a large number of public intellectuals and middle-class heroes like Nandan Nilekani, Aruna Roy and Arundhati Roy. Every now and then we hear Anna’s movement being described as ‘undemocratic’, ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘anti-parliament’.

But is Anna’s fast and peaceful people’s movement around him to bring in an effective anti-corruption mechanism, the Lokpal, really against democracy, constitution and parliament or is it that our understanding of these words that is flawed?

One doesn’t really need to be either a constitutional expert or a political scientist to decipher this. In fact, the answer lies in the simple statement that Anna has been telling people: In a democracy, people are ‘king’; public representatives (the MPs) are ‘sevak’ (public servants).

Lay men, women and youngsters flocking to Anna or taking candlelight marches across the country understand this simple truth which most of our politicians and public intellectuals are unable or unwilling to, for whatever reasons.

Noted jurist Fali Nariman said the other day that ‘people’ come before ‘parliament’, implying that people are the sovereigns not parliament. Had that not been the case, we wouldn’t be holding parliamentary elections every five year and deciding who will be sitting in parliament to make laws.

Parliament came in because that is what people of India decided to set up while deciding on how they wanted to be governed. And this was codified in our constitution.

Now, ‘constitution’ is the mother law “we, the people” gave ourselves in 1950 to ensure that the said parliament govern us in a certain manner, not in any other.

The constitution was, therefore, drafted by “we, the people”. It is not a divine diktat. It is not divine. Had that not been the case we wouldn’t have amended it more than 100 times!

So, ‘people’ come even before ‘constitution’. One fine day, people of India may decide to, say for example, go for ‘presidential system’ of governance. At one point of time, the BJP was advocating that view. There could be others who may join the chorus. Everywhere in the world constitutions are rewritten, some for better, some for worse. But that is another issue altogether. It only demonstrates that ‘people’ come before ‘constitution’. It isn’t the other way round.

And all this because of another simple truth. Ours is a democracy. There could be no better definition of democracy than what Abraham Lincoln said: Democracy is of the people, for the people and by the people. That is the political philosophy “we, the people” decided to retain when the British left. If anyone has any doubt, proceedings of our constituent assembly will clear it.

The politicians, especially when in power, tend to forget this and arrogate themselves to be the ‘lord and master’ simply because we come from hierarchy-based feudal society. Democracy was brought to us by the British (if we ignore the so-called ‘village democracy’ of yore that some propounded but never proved, not even in the voluminous debates in the constituent assembly), after years of being ruled by sundry kings, queens, zamindars and their henchmen. Secondly, because we have granted too much privileges to our representatives. Thirdly, framers of our constitution either forgot or thought it not necessary to put strong checks and balances on them by way of a ‘code of conduct’.

The collective impact of all this is that we know that JMM bribery happened but none was ever punished. That is why cash-for-votes happened but none is jail until now. That is why more than 150 individuals facing serious criminal charges sit in parliament. That is why Lokpal bill doesn’t get passed for 42 years and yet our politicians in power and the co-opted public intellectuals call Anna’s fast ‘blackmail’ and ‘danger to democracy’.

Not that they don’t understand the true meaning of democracy, constitution and parliament. They do. But they don’t care.

It is the arrogance of the ruler that has gripped them.

See how politicians talk about corruption only when they are 'not' in power. When in power, they behave exactly in the same arrogant manner. Had that not been the case, the Lokpal could have been brought about by any of the UPA, NDA, National Front, United Front, Janata Party governments in these years.

As for the co-opted public intellectuals, they know which side of their bread is buttered. Not a word more is needed to explain their behaviour.

Anna’s movement has happened and is important because of the fact that once-in-a-five-year election has failed to act as an effective check-and-balance system or bring about responsible behaviour from our representatives. They feel no compulsion to listen to the people who have elected them to do their bidding.

And Anna's movement has proved that conclusively.

Anna’s pathshala: What about parliament’s accountability?

August 25 2011, governancenow.com

Lokpal is being debated for 42 years with zero result

What made Pranab Mukherjee, the Congress’ most politically savvy and sensitive leader, to dismiss Team Anna so disdainfully Wednesday night? What made him go back on all his and his government’s previous assurances on the Lokpal bill and also dismiss Anna’s fast as none of his or his government’s business?

The answer clearly lies in the views expressed by non-Congress political parties in parliament and then at the all-party meet held in the day.

NDA convener and JD-U leader Sharad Yadav set the tone. He said while participating in a debate on corruption in parliament that “supremacy of parliament” shouldn’t be allowed to be undermined and that though he was in favour of a “strong Lokpal” it should be made “within the constitutional framework”.

At the all-party meet that followed, the opposition parties again underlined “supremacy of parliament”, “its inviolable” processes and said parliament could not be allowed to function under the pressure of the outsiders.

The implication was that Team Anna had no business dictating terms to parliament. Anna’s preconditions to break his fast – (a) Jan Lokpal be considered by parliament and (b) a strong Lokpal bill be cleared by August 30 ¬– amounted to an assault on the “supremacy of parliament”.

It also meant that the parliamentarians wanted to the Lokpal bill to be discussed by the standing committee as a matter of due process and they can’t be forced to pass it within a time frame.
None, however, paused for a moment to reflect how for the past 42 long years parliament has only been debating the Lokpal bill. Eight times standing committees have examined it. But the net result is zero.

For the past five months, the country has debated nothing but Lokpal. And never before in our country’s history has any legislation been so exhaustively talked about for so long. The net result is, as Prashant Bushan described it at the end of the futile talk with Pranab Mukherjee, back to square one.

If the parliamentarians are to be given a free hand, as the rhetoric about “parliamentary supremacy” suggest, it will mean another round of endless debate, rather, talks.

The legal sovereignty of parliament notwithstanding, the obvious question that arises is whether parliament has any accountability. Conventional wisdom suggests that it is answerable to people, but once in five years when parliamentary elections are held.

That has clearly proved useless.

So what do “we, the people” do? Are we supposed to live at the mercy of parliament?
Anna, and his team, seems to think otherwise. That is why Anna is on fast and is insisting that his conditions be met before he withdraws.

Whether his method is Gandhian, whether he is a Gandhian and a “visionary” too (Ramachandra Guha thinks he isn’t) pale in significance once it is realized that Anna’s success would mean a paradigm shift in law-making process in the country.

Ordinary people seem to understand this, but not the parliamentarians and the public intellectuals, now including Ramachandra Guha. None of them seem to mind corruption. They seem more bothered about the process, rather than the content of the Anna’s movement.