Governance Now, Aug 16-31
If the Commonwealth Games are about national prestige, will we be left with much of it?
Each passing day brings out more embarrassing details about the Commonwealth Games’ preparations, esta-blishing clearly how it is more about a brazen loot of public money and gross incompetence/collusion of a whole set of powerful people—politicians, bureaucrats and sports managers—than anything to do with our sporting prowess.
To begin with, the cost overrun has been colossal—from Rs 1,899 crore at the time of bidding in 2003 to Rs 35,000 crore. Yet, even the basic infrastructure—stadiums, living quarters of players, practice grounds, approach roads to venues and beautification drive in the city—is not in place. The Games’ organising committee (OC) seems busier explaining various scams than in preparing for the competition.
Surprisingly, the first one to blow the whistle was a near-dysfunctional Central Vigilance Commission. It made telling comments: “ineligible agencies were awarded work”; “almost all organisations executing works for the Games (MCD, PWD, DDA, NDMC, CPWD, RITES) considered inadmissible factors to jack-up price”; price bids were “tampered” with after being opened and poor quality of works certified as good. Sitaram Yechuri, a CPM member of parliament, provided more damning evidence when he quoted official records to show how the “renovation” work on stadiums was several times costlier than building new ones—Rs 961 crore for the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Rs 669 crore for the India Gandhi Indoor Stadium, Rs 262 crore for the Dhyan Chand Hockey Stadium and so on. Contrast this with a state-of-art stadium built in Nagpur for Rs 84 crore.
Suresh Kalmadi, OC chairman, tried to brazen it out at first but soon wickets started falling. Documents surfaced to show how huge sums were being siphoned off to an UK-based company. Kalmadi justified it by flaunting an official document that turned out to be doctored and the first wicket fell—Sanjay Mahindroo, OC’s deputy DG, resigned and disappeared. Then OC treasurer Anil Khanna resigned after it was revealed that his son’s firm had got the contract to lay synthetic tennis turfs. Two other senior officials, T S Darbari and M Jeychandran, were suspended for financial irregularities.
Then came the shocking revelations about hiring sports equipments and accessories at prices higher than their actual cost. Though this forced the OC to go for outright purchase of sports equipments, more shocking details were waiting. All the financial deals had actually been cleared by an apex body that included top bureaucrats of the country—M Ramachandran (secretary, urban development), Sindhushree Khullar (secretary, sports and youth affairs), Sanjiv Kumar Mittal, (additional secretary, finance) and Rahul Bhatnagar (joint secretary, sports and youth affairs). And none of them raised an eyebrow at any point!
More scams followed. The OC had contracted an Australian sports marketing firm to find sponsors for the Games. The firm’s own contribution was very little as most of the sponsorship came from our own PSUs, but as per the contract, it was to get 15 to 23 percent commission on all of it. The OC had also committed to give another 5 percent of its revenue to the Indian Olympic Association that Kalmadi heads, purely as a charity. Both had to be scrapped by the OC later because of public outcry.
As for our loudmouth MP Mani Shankar Aiyar, who has been the most vocal critic of the Games, it turns out that he played a major role as the sports minister between 2006 and 2008 in blocking most of the work-related proposals, leading to delay and cost overrun to the tune of at least Rs 1,710 crore. This was revealed by the sports ministry officials!
Amidst all these hullabaloo, Kalmadi, the man responsible for much of the mess, remains unfazed. He has even ordered an inquiry to find out the guilty! But our appeal to him is: Please Go. The Games can’t be a bigger fiasco without you. And since you can’t be sacked, the OC being a registered society, you would serve the Games and the country best by quitting the scene now!
Friday, August 20, 2010
“Planning Commission will need to refurbish its tools to foresee into a much more dynamic world, to offer change”
Governance Now, Aug 16-31
The Planning Commission is in the process of reinventing itself. More than making five-year plans and allocating resources, it seeks to transform itself into what is being described as the Systems Reforms Commission—a strategic thinking group that will look ahead and think ahead, sense the emerging challenges and the opportunities and accordingly, devise appropriate responses for the government. Arun Maira, who has had a distinguishing career in the corporate world and headed the Boston Consulting Group until 2008, has been entrusted with this task. A Planning Commission member since July 2009, Maira shares his vision with Prasanna Mohanty. Edited excerpts from the interview:
Why does the Planning Commission need a revamp?
From time to time you should look at an institution. The Planning Commission had a new set of members, a new commission, and so they said “Why don’t we reflect on what would be required to make the Planning Commission more effective in the current environment?”
Any particular drawback or reason you felt the plan panel wasn’t responding to the current environment?
Well, the environment has changed so much in the country and the world. Sixty years ago the country was more centrally managed. Now there is much more devolution of power to the states and further devolution within the states. Also, the private sector has a much larger role in the country.
In all large entities, whether a corporation or a country, we need to foresee what may happen and make changes within to respond to that.
Previously, you could make many more things happen by the money you put in. Now it is not only the money that the central government puts in but also what the private sector and the states do.
Making things happen has changed, the need to have foresight hasn’t. In fact, it has increased. The world has become much more dynamic because of interconnection, globalisation and speed. The Planning Commission would need to refurbish its tools, its processes to be able to foresee into a much more dynamic world, offer change and also change its ability to communicate with people.
The Planning Commission is often criticised for not monitoring its projects that could have helped in fine-tuning, removing bottlenecks.
Many people ask the Planning Commission, “Why don’t you understand the details of what’s happening on the ground.” I say, routinely, no. Because that is the job of the state. And going further, if you have given it to a local body beneath the state level, then the local body should be doing it.
Then you are empowering people and making them responsible.
It has also been pointed out that there is a disconnect between the plan and non-plan parts of the government expenditure.
In a corporation, the capital budget is one thing and is separate, and the revenue budget is different. There is a reason for it.
The capital side of things will produce returns over a longer period of time. You need to raise lumpy money allocated against a lumpy project. The revenue side is: people are paying you for your products and services and what you spend on salaries and to deliver products and services.
This is good management actually. In other words, what we have is good management. Therefore, I think when people criticise they don’t apply themselves.
That comes from the Finance Commissions.
You can intellectually say that. I am talking from the point of management. In terms of separating two things, I see no problem. However, if people are not maintaining assets in this country properly because they say “I don’t have money”, then the Finance Commission says that the Planning Commission must foresee and provide for it.
What it means is you have to pass on more money from the revenue accounts to the Planning Commission for revenue purposes because maintenance is a revenue activity. This becomes a problem… The problem arises because there is no maintenance culture in this country. People put up things and don’t care about it afterwards – whether it is a road, a building or any electrical facility.
You are believed to have worked out a revamp plan for the Planning Commission.
We consulted with the stakeholders outside the Planning Commission to ask them what it should do more effectively. In that regard we came to know that we’ve got to be able to persuade a system that we don’t control directly – because we don’t fund everything in the system – to make things happen.
Number one, we should have the foresight, the ability to see further ahead on behalf of the whole system, like navigators with a radar; and then pass on the signals to the pilots, who are the executive.
To do that we would work with people outside – even those outside India – who are in various fields, watching trends and giving signals about the changes that are under way. Working with them one can put a composite picture about what the world may look like.
What one is sensing is then converted into a scenario and made available to the pilots so that they can take appropriate action.
Number two, as we begin to see opportunities and the new challenges emerging – water crisis or unemployment, for example – we can prepare conditions so that there is no crisis. Three or four such big challenges can be located beforehand and then a variety of people can work together to see how to address those challenges. That’s what the white papers are all about—give out thoughts and ideas that people can then use to take action accordingly.
Now, we’ve got to persuade a variety of people about the scenario in the language that they understand so that they are able to take appropriate action.
So these are the three critical functions that the Planning Commission should perform effectively.
Will the Planning Commission then resemble the National Advisory Council or you see it differently?
I see it differently. In case of the NAC, it doesn’t have the wherewithal of the Planning Commission. It is a specialised agency looking into the social side and is going deeper. Similarly, there are other people working on the security side. That’s also a supplement.
So, there are specialised agencies looking into their areas of specialties. The one place where all such things are collated is the Planning Commission.
Will the plan panel continue to make five-year plans or allocate money after the revamp?
That will go on. What the Planning Commission does adequately will go on. We are talking about the additionalities, the changes. What the Planning Commission needs to do differently are the three functions I mentioned.
Accountability of the Planning Commission has always been an issue. It is said the National Development Council approves its plan without any critical analysis.
We are in a much more open system, a system in which there are many semi-independent or independent agencies like the states which take their own action and don’t report to each other or to the centre. Nor can they be asked to do things differently. So when you talk of approving a plan, by their listening to it (at the NDC) the function is served.
As I said, our idea in the Planning Commission has to be to inform these people; the good things to do and the changes that are going to happen. They should get influenced by this and do things they then feel like doing. We can’t insist that they do what is indicated in the plan.
If we put up a plan it doesn’t mean automatically everything in the plan is in an executive form. You say it, then devise a scheme, you sell the scheme, you allocate money for it and so it goes on.
For example, you come to an item, JNNURM, which is included in the plan in one way, but then it is developed and debated with the states and if then, at the NDC, they say that this item for which the money will be allocated centrally is okay, that is enough. They are endorsing as much they should be, at the time. They can’t endorse it anymore because details would be worked out through another process, again in consultation.
But it is also about giving power to the local bodies, which have become just implementing agencies even though they have the power to plan for themselves.
But that is what the Planning Commission is saying now for the PESA [Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act] or the 73rd and 74th amendments which require that the local bodies make their plans. That is the right way to do things.
In a vast and diverse country, the only way you can get a sensible plan is when people make local plans. You can’t, sitting in the centre, know what is good for all the different parts. And once the local plan is made, the local bodies are made accountable for its implementation. But that’s not happening. People are not allowed to make their plan.
What is the Planning Commission’s role then?
It is to induce change in the system…the three things I mentioned. When the prime minister used the term “systems reforms commission”, it is not a budgeting commission any more. That’s the contrast. Many people see it is a budgeting commission. No, no, we are the “Systems Reforms Commission” which induces change in the system such that good things and right things happen. And one of the big changes in the system that has to happen is much more local empowerment and then creation of conditions around the local bodies so that they can function and be effective.
Now most of the investments are coming from the private sector or in the form of PPP. What kind of adjustments the Planning Commission needs to make?
It is the Planning Commission’s idea to have the PPP. It is part of the systems reforms. The Planning Commission has been saying: Look, we need much more money to make things happen. We are also in such a situation that we need the private sector to have a larger role. That’s the Planning Commission’s advocacy.
Does it limit the Planning Commission’s budgeting function?
Of course, and we should. I would be very happy if the Planning Commission didn’t have to give money. If the country was working, money was being raised by the states and the private sector and they were spending and the good things were happening in the country, it is perfect! n
The Planning Commission is in the process of reinventing itself. More than making five-year plans and allocating resources, it seeks to transform itself into what is being described as the Systems Reforms Commission—a strategic thinking group that will look ahead and think ahead, sense the emerging challenges and the opportunities and accordingly, devise appropriate responses for the government. Arun Maira, who has had a distinguishing career in the corporate world and headed the Boston Consulting Group until 2008, has been entrusted with this task. A Planning Commission member since July 2009, Maira shares his vision with Prasanna Mohanty. Edited excerpts from the interview:
Why does the Planning Commission need a revamp?
From time to time you should look at an institution. The Planning Commission had a new set of members, a new commission, and so they said “Why don’t we reflect on what would be required to make the Planning Commission more effective in the current environment?”
Any particular drawback or reason you felt the plan panel wasn’t responding to the current environment?
Well, the environment has changed so much in the country and the world. Sixty years ago the country was more centrally managed. Now there is much more devolution of power to the states and further devolution within the states. Also, the private sector has a much larger role in the country.
In all large entities, whether a corporation or a country, we need to foresee what may happen and make changes within to respond to that.
Previously, you could make many more things happen by the money you put in. Now it is not only the money that the central government puts in but also what the private sector and the states do.
Making things happen has changed, the need to have foresight hasn’t. In fact, it has increased. The world has become much more dynamic because of interconnection, globalisation and speed. The Planning Commission would need to refurbish its tools, its processes to be able to foresee into a much more dynamic world, offer change and also change its ability to communicate with people.
The Planning Commission is often criticised for not monitoring its projects that could have helped in fine-tuning, removing bottlenecks.
Many people ask the Planning Commission, “Why don’t you understand the details of what’s happening on the ground.” I say, routinely, no. Because that is the job of the state. And going further, if you have given it to a local body beneath the state level, then the local body should be doing it.
Then you are empowering people and making them responsible.
It has also been pointed out that there is a disconnect between the plan and non-plan parts of the government expenditure.
In a corporation, the capital budget is one thing and is separate, and the revenue budget is different. There is a reason for it.
The capital side of things will produce returns over a longer period of time. You need to raise lumpy money allocated against a lumpy project. The revenue side is: people are paying you for your products and services and what you spend on salaries and to deliver products and services.
This is good management actually. In other words, what we have is good management. Therefore, I think when people criticise they don’t apply themselves.
That comes from the Finance Commissions.
You can intellectually say that. I am talking from the point of management. In terms of separating two things, I see no problem. However, if people are not maintaining assets in this country properly because they say “I don’t have money”, then the Finance Commission says that the Planning Commission must foresee and provide for it.
What it means is you have to pass on more money from the revenue accounts to the Planning Commission for revenue purposes because maintenance is a revenue activity. This becomes a problem… The problem arises because there is no maintenance culture in this country. People put up things and don’t care about it afterwards – whether it is a road, a building or any electrical facility.
You are believed to have worked out a revamp plan for the Planning Commission.
We consulted with the stakeholders outside the Planning Commission to ask them what it should do more effectively. In that regard we came to know that we’ve got to be able to persuade a system that we don’t control directly – because we don’t fund everything in the system – to make things happen.
Number one, we should have the foresight, the ability to see further ahead on behalf of the whole system, like navigators with a radar; and then pass on the signals to the pilots, who are the executive.
To do that we would work with people outside – even those outside India – who are in various fields, watching trends and giving signals about the changes that are under way. Working with them one can put a composite picture about what the world may look like.
What one is sensing is then converted into a scenario and made available to the pilots so that they can take appropriate action.
Number two, as we begin to see opportunities and the new challenges emerging – water crisis or unemployment, for example – we can prepare conditions so that there is no crisis. Three or four such big challenges can be located beforehand and then a variety of people can work together to see how to address those challenges. That’s what the white papers are all about—give out thoughts and ideas that people can then use to take action accordingly.
Now, we’ve got to persuade a variety of people about the scenario in the language that they understand so that they are able to take appropriate action.
So these are the three critical functions that the Planning Commission should perform effectively.
Will the Planning Commission then resemble the National Advisory Council or you see it differently?
I see it differently. In case of the NAC, it doesn’t have the wherewithal of the Planning Commission. It is a specialised agency looking into the social side and is going deeper. Similarly, there are other people working on the security side. That’s also a supplement.
So, there are specialised agencies looking into their areas of specialties. The one place where all such things are collated is the Planning Commission.
Will the plan panel continue to make five-year plans or allocate money after the revamp?
That will go on. What the Planning Commission does adequately will go on. We are talking about the additionalities, the changes. What the Planning Commission needs to do differently are the three functions I mentioned.
Accountability of the Planning Commission has always been an issue. It is said the National Development Council approves its plan without any critical analysis.
We are in a much more open system, a system in which there are many semi-independent or independent agencies like the states which take their own action and don’t report to each other or to the centre. Nor can they be asked to do things differently. So when you talk of approving a plan, by their listening to it (at the NDC) the function is served.
As I said, our idea in the Planning Commission has to be to inform these people; the good things to do and the changes that are going to happen. They should get influenced by this and do things they then feel like doing. We can’t insist that they do what is indicated in the plan.
If we put up a plan it doesn’t mean automatically everything in the plan is in an executive form. You say it, then devise a scheme, you sell the scheme, you allocate money for it and so it goes on.
For example, you come to an item, JNNURM, which is included in the plan in one way, but then it is developed and debated with the states and if then, at the NDC, they say that this item for which the money will be allocated centrally is okay, that is enough. They are endorsing as much they should be, at the time. They can’t endorse it anymore because details would be worked out through another process, again in consultation.
But it is also about giving power to the local bodies, which have become just implementing agencies even though they have the power to plan for themselves.
But that is what the Planning Commission is saying now for the PESA [Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act] or the 73rd and 74th amendments which require that the local bodies make their plans. That is the right way to do things.
In a vast and diverse country, the only way you can get a sensible plan is when people make local plans. You can’t, sitting in the centre, know what is good for all the different parts. And once the local plan is made, the local bodies are made accountable for its implementation. But that’s not happening. People are not allowed to make their plan.
What is the Planning Commission’s role then?
It is to induce change in the system…the three things I mentioned. When the prime minister used the term “systems reforms commission”, it is not a budgeting commission any more. That’s the contrast. Many people see it is a budgeting commission. No, no, we are the “Systems Reforms Commission” which induces change in the system such that good things and right things happen. And one of the big changes in the system that has to happen is much more local empowerment and then creation of conditions around the local bodies so that they can function and be effective.
Now most of the investments are coming from the private sector or in the form of PPP. What kind of adjustments the Planning Commission needs to make?
It is the Planning Commission’s idea to have the PPP. It is part of the systems reforms. The Planning Commission has been saying: Look, we need much more money to make things happen. We are also in such a situation that we need the private sector to have a larger role. That’s the Planning Commission’s advocacy.
Does it limit the Planning Commission’s budgeting function?
Of course, and we should. I would be very happy if the Planning Commission didn’t have to give money. If the country was working, money was being raised by the states and the private sector and they were spending and the good things were happening in the country, it is perfect! n
Thursday, August 5, 2010
POSCO’s land acquisition in Orissa is illegal
governancenow.com
July 28 2010
South Korean company has started paying compensation to farmers
South Korean steel major, POSCO, has begun acquiring land for its Rs 54,000 crore plant in Orissa in gross violation of law.
Firstly, its MoU with the Orissa government lapsed on June 22 this year and hence, the project has no legal status.
Secondly, since the state government has not complied with the Forest Rights Act and completed the process of granting forest rights to the forest dwellers (forest land accounts for bulk of the acquisition—3,000 acre of 4,004 acre to be acquired), it is completely illegal to acquire forest land.
Third, the central government has not given forest and environment clearance to the project yet.
In fact, the environment and forests ministry has withheld its clearance to the POSCO project on the ground that the Forest Rights Act has not been complied with. It recently sent former bureaucrat N C Saxena to do a reality check at the project site. Saxena’s report is awaited.
POSCO’s trouble goes beyond this. The Orissa High Court stayed the government’s attempt to give mining lease a couple of weeks ago saying that the laid down procure had not been followed in recommending its case. So, POSCO doesn’t have a iron ore mining lease to set up its plant.
In such circumstances, it defies logic for the state government to allow POSCO to acquire land, which it began by giving compensation to two villagers in Gadakujanga panchayat in Jagatsinghpur district yesterday (Tuesday).
POSCO has announced a compensation package of Rs 400 crore to acquire 4,004 acre of land in three gram panchayats of Jagatsinghpur—Dhinkia, Nuagaon and Gadakujanga. Of this, Rs 100 crore is meant for land cost, Rs 100 crore for rehabilitation and Rs 200 crore for compensation to encroachers on government land.
July 28 2010
South Korean company has started paying compensation to farmers
South Korean steel major, POSCO, has begun acquiring land for its Rs 54,000 crore plant in Orissa in gross violation of law.
Firstly, its MoU with the Orissa government lapsed on June 22 this year and hence, the project has no legal status.
Secondly, since the state government has not complied with the Forest Rights Act and completed the process of granting forest rights to the forest dwellers (forest land accounts for bulk of the acquisition—3,000 acre of 4,004 acre to be acquired), it is completely illegal to acquire forest land.
Third, the central government has not given forest and environment clearance to the project yet.
In fact, the environment and forests ministry has withheld its clearance to the POSCO project on the ground that the Forest Rights Act has not been complied with. It recently sent former bureaucrat N C Saxena to do a reality check at the project site. Saxena’s report is awaited.
POSCO’s trouble goes beyond this. The Orissa High Court stayed the government’s attempt to give mining lease a couple of weeks ago saying that the laid down procure had not been followed in recommending its case. So, POSCO doesn’t have a iron ore mining lease to set up its plant.
In such circumstances, it defies logic for the state government to allow POSCO to acquire land, which it began by giving compensation to two villagers in Gadakujanga panchayat in Jagatsinghpur district yesterday (Tuesday).
POSCO has announced a compensation package of Rs 400 crore to acquire 4,004 acre of land in three gram panchayats of Jagatsinghpur—Dhinkia, Nuagaon and Gadakujanga. Of this, Rs 100 crore is meant for land cost, Rs 100 crore for rehabilitation and Rs 200 crore for compensation to encroachers on government land.
Is Kasab alive a better message to terrorists than Kasab dead?
governancenow.com, may 7, 2010
Now that Ajmal Kasab has been sentenced to death two very divergent views are being put out. One that insists he must be hanged without delay, by fast tracking the rest of the appeals process and even jumping the long queue of convicts awaiting the noose. That they say will be a fitting reply to the terrorists and their sponsors. The other view says that keeping Kasab alive by condemning him to a life in prison till death is a far better way of sending that message. The Economic Times has strongly advocated this line in a front page comment. Do you agree Kasab alive and rotting in prison for a life time is a better message than Kasab dead?
Now that Ajmal Kasab has been sentenced to death two very divergent views are being put out. One that insists he must be hanged without delay, by fast tracking the rest of the appeals process and even jumping the long queue of convicts awaiting the noose. That they say will be a fitting reply to the terrorists and their sponsors. The other view says that keeping Kasab alive by condemning him to a life in prison till death is a far better way of sending that message. The Economic Times has strongly advocated this line in a front page comment. Do you agree Kasab alive and rotting in prison for a life time is a better message than Kasab dead?
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Go Kalmadi Go. Games can’t be a bigger fiasco without you.
governancenow.com, aug 3
If CWG flops in the process, so be it! National pride can’t permit brazen loot of public money and gross incompetence
With each passing day, the Commonwealth Games’ preparations are turning out to be a big embarrassment. Less than two months to go, the infrastructure – stadiums, living quarters of the players and practice grounds – is not in place. All norms have been violated to allow contractors to carry out substandard jobs but make money by the piles. Sports equipments and accessories have been “hired” for prices several times higher than the actual cost. The entire capital is dug up. First rains have already exposed what a shoddy job the renovation work on our stadiums has been. And the cost of the Games has overrun several times the estimate – from less than Rs 2,000 crore to Rs 35,000 crore at the last count.
To top it all, the brazenness of Suresh Kalmadi, the Organising Committee chairman and the man behind the show, knows no bounds. The other day he waved a document to justify siphoning of a huge sum of money to a dubious UK-based firm and now it turns out that the document was doctored! It is difficult to imagine Kalmadi didn’t know, even though he himself didn’t doctor the document, that the Indian High Commission’s letter couldn’t have been genuine. It didn’t have a list of high commission-approved firms, but just one name and was forwarded from the private email id of a junior staff. Worse, a substantial part of payment went to a subsidiary of this firm which has since then filed for bankruptcy!
But none of these are enough to shame Kalmadi. Why, he wouldn’t even sack his key men found to have been involved in financial irregularities and whose ouster the sports ministry had sought by writing to him twice. One of them, Dr Sanjay Mahindroo, it now transpires, had asked the UK-based firm to inflate the bills! Kalmadi's answer so far has been that he will set up inquiries to find out who are guilty.
No sir, don't try to find out who is guilty. Others can do that job just as well, if not better. You as chairman of the Games' Organising Committee are responsible for the big fiasco it has turned out to be.
And since you can't be sacked because you, as president of the Indian Olympic Association (which was given the job of holding the CWG by the Commonwealth Games Federation), have appointed yourself as chairman of the Organising Committee, please go!
We know, there could be some minor inconveniences, but certainly the situation can’t get any worse without you.
If CWG flops in the process, so be it! National pride can’t permit brazen loot of public money and gross incompetence
With each passing day, the Commonwealth Games’ preparations are turning out to be a big embarrassment. Less than two months to go, the infrastructure – stadiums, living quarters of the players and practice grounds – is not in place. All norms have been violated to allow contractors to carry out substandard jobs but make money by the piles. Sports equipments and accessories have been “hired” for prices several times higher than the actual cost. The entire capital is dug up. First rains have already exposed what a shoddy job the renovation work on our stadiums has been. And the cost of the Games has overrun several times the estimate – from less than Rs 2,000 crore to Rs 35,000 crore at the last count.
To top it all, the brazenness of Suresh Kalmadi, the Organising Committee chairman and the man behind the show, knows no bounds. The other day he waved a document to justify siphoning of a huge sum of money to a dubious UK-based firm and now it turns out that the document was doctored! It is difficult to imagine Kalmadi didn’t know, even though he himself didn’t doctor the document, that the Indian High Commission’s letter couldn’t have been genuine. It didn’t have a list of high commission-approved firms, but just one name and was forwarded from the private email id of a junior staff. Worse, a substantial part of payment went to a subsidiary of this firm which has since then filed for bankruptcy!
But none of these are enough to shame Kalmadi. Why, he wouldn’t even sack his key men found to have been involved in financial irregularities and whose ouster the sports ministry had sought by writing to him twice. One of them, Dr Sanjay Mahindroo, it now transpires, had asked the UK-based firm to inflate the bills! Kalmadi's answer so far has been that he will set up inquiries to find out who are guilty.
No sir, don't try to find out who is guilty. Others can do that job just as well, if not better. You as chairman of the Games' Organising Committee are responsible for the big fiasco it has turned out to be.
And since you can't be sacked because you, as president of the Indian Olympic Association (which was given the job of holding the CWG by the Commonwealth Games Federation), have appointed yourself as chairman of the Organising Committee, please go!
We know, there could be some minor inconveniences, but certainly the situation can’t get any worse without you.
Right to food for one-fourth of India!
governance now mag, aug 1-15
Sonia’s dream legislation is now just an improved PDS scheme.
This is what the Congress manifesto of 2009 said about the right to food: “The Indian National Congress pledges to enact a Right to Food law that guarantees access to sufficient food for all people, particularly the most vulnerable sections of society.” This then found mention in president Pratibha Patil’s address to the joint session of parliament.
One year down the line, that promise stands substantially diluted.
The high-profile National Advisory Council headed by all-powerful Congress president Sonia Gandhi decided on July 14 that this right will be restricted to only one-fourth of the “most disadvantaged districts or blocks” who will get 35 kg of food grains a month at Rs 3 a kg--an improvement from 25 kg at Rs 3 a kg that the Congress manifesto had promised.
In rest of the country, everyone will be entitled to 25 kg of grain and the socially vulnerable groups will get 35 kg at Rs 3 a kg, until 35 kg entitlement is universalised on some future date.
But the key lies in another decision taken that day which said, “There would also be a category that would be excluded based on transparent and verifiable criteria”. Now how many people would be excluded and on what criteria has not been decided yet. There are apprehensions that this exclusion would extend to the one-fourth districts/blocks which will have universal entitlement.
That is because the NAC has succumbed to the pressures from the ministries of finance, consumer affairs, food and public distribution, planning commission and the eGoM headed by Pranab Mukherjee—all involved in working out the right to food law.
Procurement, not production
These ministries and the planning commission in particular made a big hue and cry over the “availability” of food --which was taken to be 50-55 million tonnes--to restrict the amount of food grains to be made available under the right to food law. Planning commission also raised several other questions (see the box in the previous page). It simply didn’t occur to anyone that the “availability” figure is actually the amount of annual “procurement” of food grains, and not “production” of food grains. Our production is at least four times more than procurement--it was 234.47 million tonnes last year and is expected to be a bit lower at 218.20 million tonnes this year.
Why did NAC (and all others) rely on “procurement” rather than “production” and made it seem that the grain availability is not sufficient for universal entitlement?
Abhijit Sen, a key planning commission member involved with the exercise (though not in NAC’s deliberations) says: “At the moment, the assumption everyone is working with is our procurement of food grains is 50 to 55 million tonnes”. But why so? He explains: Expanding procurement has its consequences--a higher minimum support price assuming that all available grain is procured and need to pay more to get more), expansion of procurement centres and godowns and more people to manage all these; all of which means more money.
The issue of providing “nutrition” rather than just rice and wheat, also remains unaddressed. There is no mention of coarse grains popular with the poor, millets, pulses, oil and vegitables, let alone meat or fish.
NAC, though, says “comprehensive nutrition support schemes” will be initiated for vulnerable groups like, infants, pre-school children, school children, adolescent girls, pregnant women, street-children, homless, the aged and infirm, differentially-abled, those living with leprosy, TB and HIV/AIDS etc--alongwith community kitchens across the country.
But does it not reduce the right to food law to an improved version of the Antyodaya Anna Yojna?
No right in right to food
The right to food has to be, by definition, universal and is recognized as such by the Supreme Court (in the Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame in 1990). It is also inherent in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 47 says “the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people..”)
Ironically, there is no “right” in the right to food law being prepared by the NAC. It is called the “National Food Security Bill”. Contrast this with the right to forest (The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006) or the right to education (Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009.
While one hopes that the NAC will consider these issues in its subsequent deliberations, it must keep in mind that a piecemeal approach won’t help. Food security calls for a holistic approach that will take care of food production, nutritional needs of the malnourished country and its distribution.
Sonia’s dream legislation is now just an improved PDS scheme.
This is what the Congress manifesto of 2009 said about the right to food: “The Indian National Congress pledges to enact a Right to Food law that guarantees access to sufficient food for all people, particularly the most vulnerable sections of society.” This then found mention in president Pratibha Patil’s address to the joint session of parliament.
One year down the line, that promise stands substantially diluted.
The high-profile National Advisory Council headed by all-powerful Congress president Sonia Gandhi decided on July 14 that this right will be restricted to only one-fourth of the “most disadvantaged districts or blocks” who will get 35 kg of food grains a month at Rs 3 a kg--an improvement from 25 kg at Rs 3 a kg that the Congress manifesto had promised.
In rest of the country, everyone will be entitled to 25 kg of grain and the socially vulnerable groups will get 35 kg at Rs 3 a kg, until 35 kg entitlement is universalised on some future date.
But the key lies in another decision taken that day which said, “There would also be a category that would be excluded based on transparent and verifiable criteria”. Now how many people would be excluded and on what criteria has not been decided yet. There are apprehensions that this exclusion would extend to the one-fourth districts/blocks which will have universal entitlement.
That is because the NAC has succumbed to the pressures from the ministries of finance, consumer affairs, food and public distribution, planning commission and the eGoM headed by Pranab Mukherjee—all involved in working out the right to food law.
Procurement, not production
These ministries and the planning commission in particular made a big hue and cry over the “availability” of food --which was taken to be 50-55 million tonnes--to restrict the amount of food grains to be made available under the right to food law. Planning commission also raised several other questions (see the box in the previous page). It simply didn’t occur to anyone that the “availability” figure is actually the amount of annual “procurement” of food grains, and not “production” of food grains. Our production is at least four times more than procurement--it was 234.47 million tonnes last year and is expected to be a bit lower at 218.20 million tonnes this year.
Why did NAC (and all others) rely on “procurement” rather than “production” and made it seem that the grain availability is not sufficient for universal entitlement?
Abhijit Sen, a key planning commission member involved with the exercise (though not in NAC’s deliberations) says: “At the moment, the assumption everyone is working with is our procurement of food grains is 50 to 55 million tonnes”. But why so? He explains: Expanding procurement has its consequences--a higher minimum support price assuming that all available grain is procured and need to pay more to get more), expansion of procurement centres and godowns and more people to manage all these; all of which means more money.
The issue of providing “nutrition” rather than just rice and wheat, also remains unaddressed. There is no mention of coarse grains popular with the poor, millets, pulses, oil and vegitables, let alone meat or fish.
NAC, though, says “comprehensive nutrition support schemes” will be initiated for vulnerable groups like, infants, pre-school children, school children, adolescent girls, pregnant women, street-children, homless, the aged and infirm, differentially-abled, those living with leprosy, TB and HIV/AIDS etc--alongwith community kitchens across the country.
But does it not reduce the right to food law to an improved version of the Antyodaya Anna Yojna?
No right in right to food
The right to food has to be, by definition, universal and is recognized as such by the Supreme Court (in the Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame in 1990). It is also inherent in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 47 says “the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people..”)
Ironically, there is no “right” in the right to food law being prepared by the NAC. It is called the “National Food Security Bill”. Contrast this with the right to forest (The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006) or the right to education (Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009.
While one hopes that the NAC will consider these issues in its subsequent deliberations, it must keep in mind that a piecemeal approach won’t help. Food security calls for a holistic approach that will take care of food production, nutritional needs of the malnourished country and its distribution.
Is the government sabotaging whistleblowers’ movement?
governancenow mag, Aug 1-15
A law to protect them has been pending ever since Satyendra Dube was killed in Patna in 2003
RTI activist Amit Jethwa’s cold-blooded murder outside the Gujarat high court, a high-security zone, on July 20 is the latest in a series of such killings in recent times. There have been at least three others who lost their lives this year alone for daring to expose corruption involving the high and mighty. In the case of Jethwa, a BJP member of parliament has been named by the family of the deceased, but the suspect has not been questioned so far, let alone be arrested. The reluctance on the part of the police is understandable; they hadn’t bothered to act or provide security to the activist when he complained of the threat to his life while trying to expose illegal mining in the Gir forest area. Much in the similar way Satish Shetty, another RTI activist, lost his life in January this year when he was lynched in broad daylight on the outskirts of Pune, where he lived. Shetty had proved troublesome for the land sharks and their political patrons. Two more RTI activists Shashidhar Mishra of Bihar and Datta Patil of Maharashtra were eliminated this year in the months of February and May, respectively.
But have you heard any politician or a minister, either from the centre or the states where these incidents happened, condemning these killings or promising swift action? No. If that doesn’t move you, here is another shocker. Former Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti recently wrote a letter to Congress president and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi to tell her how every whistleblower who approached the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the apex institution entrusted with the task of fighting corruption, came to grief! Having failed to move CVC, Justice Lahoti tells Gandhi in his letter: “Let me take but one example. It would be recalled that after the unfortunate murder of Satyendra Dubey, while working in the NHAI, CVC issued a resolution extending protection to whistleblowers to save them from violent consequences. Information available show that after the issue of this resolution, every whistleblower who approached CVC came to grief, while culprits remain, by and large, unharmed to this day.” Justice Lahoti runs a non-government agency, India Rejuvenation Initiative, to help the whistleblowers.
The resolution Justice Lahoti refers to is the “Government of India Resolution on Public Interest Disclosures and Protection of Informers” issued in 2004 by the CVC after IITian Satyendra Dube was eliminated in Patna in 2003 following his letter to the Prime Minister’s Office complaining about corruption in national highway projects. The central government had, at the time, promised to bring in a law also to protect the whistleblowers. It was never done. When a private member’s bill on the subject was moved in Rajya Sabha in 2006, the member was persuaded to withdraw it on the promise that the government would soon honour its promise. The Law Commission too released a draft bill around that time, which was, of course, dismissed by the RTI activists and other civil society groups as weak and silent on protection or compensation to be provided to the whistleblowers. Finally, after the ghastly murder of Satish Shetty in January this year it seemed the government was waking up from its slumber when a minister, Prithviraj Chavan, disclosed in February that The Public Disclosure and Protection of Informers Bill was being finalized by an empowered group of ministers headed by defence minister A K Antony. Curiously, the proposed bill, which is supposed to be ready and may be introduced in the monsoon session of parliament, is not available in public domain. Worse, a civil society activist has been trying hard for several months to get access to this draft bill but neither the government nor the Central Information Commission has so far come to his help.
Does the government really want to help people fight corruption? Our experience shows that the trail in big-ticket corruption cases often leads to the high and mighty who control the governments and every conceivable trade and industry. Transparency and probity threaten their very existence! Why the pretense then? Let it be a free for all. At least we would be saving some of our most public-spirited individuals from meeting a ghastly end.
A law to protect them has been pending ever since Satyendra Dube was killed in Patna in 2003
RTI activist Amit Jethwa’s cold-blooded murder outside the Gujarat high court, a high-security zone, on July 20 is the latest in a series of such killings in recent times. There have been at least three others who lost their lives this year alone for daring to expose corruption involving the high and mighty. In the case of Jethwa, a BJP member of parliament has been named by the family of the deceased, but the suspect has not been questioned so far, let alone be arrested. The reluctance on the part of the police is understandable; they hadn’t bothered to act or provide security to the activist when he complained of the threat to his life while trying to expose illegal mining in the Gir forest area. Much in the similar way Satish Shetty, another RTI activist, lost his life in January this year when he was lynched in broad daylight on the outskirts of Pune, where he lived. Shetty had proved troublesome for the land sharks and their political patrons. Two more RTI activists Shashidhar Mishra of Bihar and Datta Patil of Maharashtra were eliminated this year in the months of February and May, respectively.
But have you heard any politician or a minister, either from the centre or the states where these incidents happened, condemning these killings or promising swift action? No. If that doesn’t move you, here is another shocker. Former Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti recently wrote a letter to Congress president and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi to tell her how every whistleblower who approached the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the apex institution entrusted with the task of fighting corruption, came to grief! Having failed to move CVC, Justice Lahoti tells Gandhi in his letter: “Let me take but one example. It would be recalled that after the unfortunate murder of Satyendra Dubey, while working in the NHAI, CVC issued a resolution extending protection to whistleblowers to save them from violent consequences. Information available show that after the issue of this resolution, every whistleblower who approached CVC came to grief, while culprits remain, by and large, unharmed to this day.” Justice Lahoti runs a non-government agency, India Rejuvenation Initiative, to help the whistleblowers.
The resolution Justice Lahoti refers to is the “Government of India Resolution on Public Interest Disclosures and Protection of Informers” issued in 2004 by the CVC after IITian Satyendra Dube was eliminated in Patna in 2003 following his letter to the Prime Minister’s Office complaining about corruption in national highway projects. The central government had, at the time, promised to bring in a law also to protect the whistleblowers. It was never done. When a private member’s bill on the subject was moved in Rajya Sabha in 2006, the member was persuaded to withdraw it on the promise that the government would soon honour its promise. The Law Commission too released a draft bill around that time, which was, of course, dismissed by the RTI activists and other civil society groups as weak and silent on protection or compensation to be provided to the whistleblowers. Finally, after the ghastly murder of Satish Shetty in January this year it seemed the government was waking up from its slumber when a minister, Prithviraj Chavan, disclosed in February that The Public Disclosure and Protection of Informers Bill was being finalized by an empowered group of ministers headed by defence minister A K Antony. Curiously, the proposed bill, which is supposed to be ready and may be introduced in the monsoon session of parliament, is not available in public domain. Worse, a civil society activist has been trying hard for several months to get access to this draft bill but neither the government nor the Central Information Commission has so far come to his help.
Does the government really want to help people fight corruption? Our experience shows that the trail in big-ticket corruption cases often leads to the high and mighty who control the governments and every conceivable trade and industry. Transparency and probity threaten their very existence! Why the pretense then? Let it be a free for all. At least we would be saving some of our most public-spirited individuals from meeting a ghastly end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)