UPA undermines EC, again

Law min counters EC effort move to bring transparency in political funding and expenses

April 02 2013, http://www.governancenow.com/views/columns/upa-undermines-ec-again

There is nothing new in the UPA government’s attempts to weaken two constitutional bodies which have proved equal to their mandates – the comptroller and auditor general (CAG) and the election commission (EC). The first one has brought some kind of accountability to the government’s functioning; unearthing several mega scams in the process in the past few years and the second has kept our election process largely free and fair. Having failed to do much about CAG, it seems UPA is now hell-bent on curbing the EC’s powers.

Three recent developments prove that. The latest one is a communication from the law ministry (which is the administrative ministry for EC) turning down EC’s suggestions to amend the electoral law and rules so as to bring transparency in the way political parties raise money and fund their election expenses.

Most parties take advantage of the fact that the Representation of People Act merely provides for submitting “a report on contributions in excess of Rs 20,000” (which are to be paid through bank cheques). They show most contributions to be less than Rs 20,000 and thereby, hide the source of hundreds of crore of rupees they raise for poll expenses. In order to check the flow of black money into the political parties, EC wanted details, including the PAN, of those who contribute even less than Rs 20,000, to be submitted.

But the law ministry rejected it saying that such a change would be against the RP Act (clause 29C), which seeks merely submission of a list of donors making contributions above Rs 20,000 and that once this is done by the political parties, it could be said that it is “in the manner required by law”. The EC has no power to scrutinise the account for its accuracy.

In another context (regarding filing of election expenses by candidates in the LR Shivaramagowda vs. TM Chandrasekhar case) the supreme court had gone into the question of whether filing a report, whether incorrect or untrue in content, can be taken as “in the manner required by law”. The apex court held that unless the report provides a true and correct account, which the EC is empowered to check, no report can be said to have been filed in accordance with the law. A report has to provide an accurate and true account. Citing this case, EC had disqualified Umlesh Yadav, a member of the UP assembly, in October 2011 and banned her from fighting elections for three years (see: http://eci.gov.in/eci_main/recent/Disqualification_case_Umkesh_Yadav.pdf) for suppressing information regarding “paid news”.

The government hadn’t bothered to react then. But when a similar case of “paid news” came up against former Maharashtra chief minister Ashok Chavan, the law ministry took a shocking stand in the supreme court. On March 13, it filed an affidavit saying that EC had no power to scrutinise Chavan’s poll expense account for correctness. Mere filing of the account would be taken as “in accordance with law”. This was a clear ploy to protect Chavan from being disqualified as a legislator and banned from contesting elections.

That is not all. Last year, the government had tried to weaken EC’s hands by attempting to give statutory status to the model code of conduct (MCC), which is voluntary in nature and is enforced by EC. Having been formulated and accepted by all the political parties and backed by the apex court, EC has managed to enforce MCC to keep our elections largely free and fair. The government wanted to make a mess of it by handing over the jurisdiction to the court of law by giving MCC a statutory status. The government knows well that once a case goes to the court, it can be delayed for years and effectively negated, unlike the current situation in which EC takes prompt action and censures candidates for violating MCC.

Fortunately, the designs of the government were exposed by the media and the government was forced to retract its steps.

But by trying to block EC from scrutinising political funding and poll expenses, the government is hell-bent on weakening any move that would check the flow of black money into the electoral politics.

How to Kill a River

June 27 2011 http://www.governancenow.com/views/columns/making-hash-its-mandate

The first ever cumulative impact assessment (CIA) study of hydro-power projects  being built on Bhagirathi and Alaknanda, two tributaries of river Ganga, has come as a big disappointment.

Carried out by the Alternate Hydro Energy Centre (AHEC) of IIT (Roorkee), which submitted its report to the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) recently, the study ignores the very raison d’être of its endeavour – assess cumulative impact of 70 hydro-power projects (HPs) commissioned or in various stages of development (three of which were scrapped last year) on these rivers, their surrounding ecosystems and human habitations along the rivers. Of the 70, 54 are run-of-the-river (ROR) and the rest storage-based projects.

The task was onerous and yet important to make sure the drive to harness hydro-power doesn’t kill the rivers and the life-sustaining environment they build around them. In fact, it was prompted by a supreme court order of 2009 to allay such fears and came in the wake of scrapping three major HPs – at Loharinag Pala, Pala Maneri and Bhaironghati on Bhagirathi river. But the findings not only fail to live up to the expectations, they do a reverse swing and advocate more such projects.

Here are some of the key issues involved in the study, the findings and what’s wrong with these findings.

* Both Bhagirathi and Alaknand originate from glaciers and so do several of their tributaries. The report says glaciers are in much higher altitudes, upstream and distant to be affected by the HPs.

Right, but it doesn’t take into consideration the crucial fact that 75 percent of Himalayan glaciers are retreating at an annual rate of 3.75 percent. This was revealed in the “most detailed” satellite-imagery based study “Snow and glaciers of the Himalayas” carried out jointly by the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) and Department of Space. Though this particular report was released in June this year, similar findings have been published in the past too.

The study doesn't take into consideration how much less water will flow in over the next five, 10 or 15 years and how that would impact the existing hydro-power projects. Prudence demands that such information are taken into consideration while planning or assessing projects.

*A dam (storage-based project) submerges part of the river and run-of-the-river  project diverts a part of it, thus “affecting” the river. Talking about diversion, the report says “the river becomes dry in the diverted stretch” which could be “very long” and “fatal to aquatic life”, besides depriving water to people on the banks. Submergence too has an adverse impact.

The report goes on to point out that the existing HPs would affect 47.3 percent of Bhagirathi and its tributaries and 43.9 percent of Alaknand and its tributaries. While failing to assess what the cumulative impact would be on the rivers and their tributaries,  the report proposes "a threshold, say 70 percent, may be fixed" for this, meaning that a river may be allowed to be submerged or diverted up to 70 percent of its length.

Shockingly, the study doesn’t say on what basis this threshold has been arrived at. Taken singly, the report points out, 70.71 percent of Bhagirathi river is affected (31% diverted, 39% submerged), yet it goes on to advocate for revival of the Loharinag Pala project and others on the same river which were scrapped last year.

* The study recognizes the fact that all HPs adversely impact the river and its aquatic life and hence it should get a breathing space between the dams/barrages “so that the river is given an opportunity to recuperate its ecological environment”. But what should this breathing space be or whether adequate breathing space has been provided in the existing projects has not been spelt out.

* The study recognizes that HPs restrict flow of rivers and that to keep the rivers and their ecosystems in good health and sustain human livelihood and wellbeing certain quantity of water should “always flow in the rivers”. It describes this flow as “environmental flow” but bases its calculations on the “minimum flow” required, ignoring needs and expectations of people living on the banks, a flow required to help flora and fauna to prosper and flourish, and not just survive and the fact that floods too have important ecological functions.

While proposing a minimum flow, the report acknowledges that this may reduce power generation and “such reduction may make several schemes unviable, especially small scale hydropower schemes”. Yet, it doesn’t say if we should scrap more projects to account to prevent this. On the contrary it concludes that hydro-power can be harnessed with environmental sustainability “provided certain measures are taken”. What these measures are, we are not told.

This part of the study also suffers from “a major handicap” as “measured river cross sections and velocity of flows were available at limited locations”. It goes on to say that the desired “building block method” which should be applied to arrive at the right environmental flow “requires much more data, time and manpower and other resources and therefore, could not be applied in this study”.

* The study registers negative changes in water quality but gives a thumbs-up saying that the impact is well within the limits of environmental sustainability. This assessment is based on individual case studies, rather than the combined impact of a series of projects. Experts point out that the thumbs-up is based on Centre for Pollution Control Board’s “use-based” classification of water which may be okay to determine potability of water drawn from a tube well but not for determining water quality of a natural river.

* The study admits that Bhagirathi and Alaknanda river basins are rich in biodiversity “designated as sensitive habitats” with “high conservation significance”. It also says that construction of reservoirs prevents migration of aquatic life and changes the domain of flowing water (river) to a standing water (lake) domain. This change brings about “significant changes in physic-chemical characteristics affecting the ecological parameters.

But it goes on to conclude: “So far, we don’t have any study of changes in aquatic life from river to reservoir. Thus, at present it is not possible to give any firm assessment on the impact of HPs on biodiversity of Alaknand and Bhagirathi.” But wasn’t that the purpose of the study?

It devotes considerable space to impact on fishes, particularly the famed golden mahseer and snow trout that so characterize these rivers by observing that the fishes “require an uninterrupted riverine habitat as well as floodplains for their breeding”, which dams and tunnels disrupt. And by way of solution, it says “fish passes” of various kinds be used. But not a word has been said about the efficacy of these passes and instances where such methods have been used successfully to make a convincing argument.

The only worthwhile suggestion the report contains is that no more HPs should be set up on the tributaries of Bhagirathi and Alaknand. It sys: “These streams have been identified as Nayar, Birhi Ganga, Bhyunder Ganga, Balganga and Asiganga which should not be exploited further as these are the lifelines of the main ecosystem of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi rivers”.

* The study points out that tunneling work for ROR projects damage springs and other underground water channels. This alters water availability and effects local population. But in a typical bureaucratic exercise, it says such blockages would lead to springs finding alternate routes and that the reservoirs being built in other projects would recharge ground water to conclude that the effect will be localized and the cumulative impact will be negligible. And then it goes on to contradict itself: “In the absence of relevant groundwater in the project scenario it may be difficult (or improper) to conclude with confidence on the impact on construction of HPs on the availability of drinking water sources to the population in the project area”.

* Photographs carried in the report tell a harrowing tale of recklessness. Huge piles of muck, generated from excavation work, have been dumped in the river beds, skirting the water flow and in forested areas of hills destroying vegetation. Instead of expressing anxiety and asking for immediate remedial action to prevent damage to the river and forests, it merely advises that suitable dumping ground may be found.

Worse, it points out that afforestation and catchment area treatment has not started for any of the HPs and that post construction impact data are not available. Yet, it concludes that “the problems generated during the construction “will die out automatically”.

* The study is dotted with lamentations about lack of data and relevant information. The chapter on “recommendations” begins with this gem: “In view of the fact that the field of cumulative impact assessment (CIA) is new and is being introduced for the first time in India, there are many gaps in the knowledge necessary to undertake CIA with the desired degree of precision, particularly in the Himalayan region where the database is weaker than that in the rest of the country. It is therefore necessary that a major programme of research and development should be drawn and implemented as early as possible.”

Bharat Jhunjhunwala, former professor of IIM-Bangalore whose petition to the central empowered committee (CEC) led to the supreme court ordering this cumulative study in 2009, says the basic mistake of the study is to define cumulative impact more in terms of sustainable development in long term and less in terms of combined impact of more than one project taken together.

He goes on to add that AHEC has failed to include several impacts in its study: loss of forests and biodiversity, trapping of sediments in reservoirs, methane emissions from reservoir, impact on health due to mosquito breeding in reservoirs and so on.

In fact, when IIT-Roorkee was given the task by the MoEF, he had objected to the choice of both the organization and its director Arun Kumar, saying that their primary competence was in engineering and design of small hydropower projects, rather than environmental studies. He would have preferred if the task had been given to NEERI, Wildlife Institution of India or Forest Research Institute.

Himanshu Thakkar, an expert on water management issues, dismisses the report as “pathetic” and says he is planning to write to the environment minister Jairam Ramesh to junk it.

He finds several major flaws: lamentations about lack of relevant data which was its job to provide, a pronounced bias for hydropower projects, absence of cumulative impact study of key indicators, silence on restrictions to ensure bio-diversity and ecological stability and several others. He is particularly disturbed with the IIT-Roorkee’s prescription of letting 70 percent of the river length be affected. He says a river gets killed in two ways – submergence and diversion – adding, “So to allow killing of 70 percent of a river is nonsense”.

Government's spin minister

Throws a no-ball at Lokpal

July 04 2011 http://www.governancenow.com/views/columns/governments-spin-minister

Kapil Sibal’s two-part article in the Hindustan Times (‘A free-floating entity’ and ‘Up the garden path’) trashing Team Anna’s version of the Lokpal Bill is breathtaking in its sweeping comments. Had he not been an eminent lawyer that he is one would have dismissed him for being political with the attendant licence to spread lies to deceive the citizens. But being an eminent lawyer, he needs to be questioned for writing an eminently trash-able article.
Here is a list of his half-truths, untruths, myths and misconceptions about our constitution and parliamentary democratic set-up vis-à-vis the Jan Lokpal Bill:
Sibal repeatedly describes the Jan Lokpal as a body of “11 unelected wise men”, “unelected executive body” etc. The emphasis is on “unelected”.
If such is the sanctity of the election, why isn’t he asking the “topmost executive” of the land, the prime minister, to get elected first? The PM is not only “unelected” for seven years running he is “unelectable” too. Shouldn’t he begin his crusade against the PM first for violating the “essence of parliamentary democracy”? How does he stand the topmost executive of the country who is no more than a “nominated” person?
Besides, which of these authorities wielding immense power is elected – CJI, CJs of high courts, judges of high courts and supreme courts, lower judiciary, DGPs, CBI director, CVC?
Sibal says, “The judiciary seeks to protect citizens. The (Jan) Lokpal seeks to prosecute them”.
Why, pray, has the government prepared the Judicial Accountability Bill? Why the impeachment move against Justice Soumitra Sen? Why is the CBI trying to prosecute Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab and Haryana high court in the cash-for-judgment scam? Why a probe has been ordered against former CJI KG Balakrishanan for amassing disproportionate assets?
Sibal says Jan Lokpal “seeks to arrogate to itself the power to discipline government servants” and that it will require a “mammoth machinery” to deal with corruption acts of about 10-12 million government servants.
But then what is the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act and other such laws and bodies like the CBI and the CVC? How are they managing to discipline 10-12 million government servants? The Jan Lokpal seeks merger of the CBI and CVC with itself, so why will it need “mammoth machinery”?
Sibal also says the constitution “protects the tenure” of government servants and hence it would need constitutional amendment if disciplinary power is given to the Jan Lokpal.
Is this the reason why our anti-corruption machinery has failed? Then, please immediately amend the constitution.
Surely, the Congress is not afraid of constitutional amendments. Indira Gandhi did it with impunity, suspending our fundamental rights, cut to size the apex court by imposing her own man as CJI, cut down powers of the higher judiciary during the Emergency. Rajiv Gandhi tried to gag the media. Did Sibal as much as wince once, even if in private, when these draconian laws were being made? Did he ever protest against Emergency and suspension of our fundamental rights?
Sibal says Jan Lokpal is seeking to prosecute MPs who are protected by the constitution to vote and speak freely in parliament.

Does the constitution protect the MPs to take bribes to vote? Does he support exoneration of the MPs involved in the JMM bribery case? And what pray has happened to the more recent cash-for-votes scam? Was it protected by the constitution too? Do you regret that about a dozen MPs were thrown out for taking money to ask questions?
Sibal is against Jan Lokpal having power to intercept telephone conversations.
Surely, a Jan Lokpal didn’t bug finance minister Pranab Mukherjee. The Niira Radia taps were also not the handiwork of the Jan Lokpal. What does this talk of the system that Sibal is so zealously trying to protect?
Sibal says Lokpal will prosecute judiciary too
This is mischievous to say the least. All Lokpal will have is the power to sanction investigation against a judge. The problem with the present system is a judge caught in a corruption case can’t be investigated without the court’s permission and that is why Justice Nirmal Yadav was allowed to retire peacefully. Will a similar mechanism to sanction investigation not be part of the Judicial Accountability Bill?
And finally,
Sibal says “some eminent jurists believe it might fall foul of the basic structure of the constitution” and that it is “answerable to none” (government, parliament and judiciary).
Really? Will the Lokpal not be debated in and passed by the parliament?
And to say it is answerable to none is absurd.
Answerable to the government: Since all answerable anti-corruption mechanism has failed, the idea is to set up a body “independent” of the government.
Answerable to parliament: Just as parliamentary committees oversee work of CVC, PSUs, a similar mechanism can be applicable to the Lokpal. Besides, annual report of the Lokpal can also be tabled in parliament on which debates etc can be conducted. Simple, isn’t it, Mr Sibal?
Answerable to judiciary: Since all decisions of the Lokpal will be subjected to review of the high court and then supreme court, it will be subjected to the judiciary. Isn’t it?

Watchdog or a lapdog?

A sad tale of media role reversal 
July 12 2011 http://www.governancenow.com/views/columns/watchdog-or-lapdog
 

Just as it went after Team Anna for daring to question the government on its will to fight corruption vis-à-vis the Lokpal bill, a good section of the English media is now cross with the apex court for daring to blame the “neoliberal” economic policies of the government for two problems that it dealt with recently – Maoist insurgency in Chhattisgarh and black money.

It seems as if the government has become a new holy cow; as if the media is no more a watchdog of democracy but a lapdog of the government, at least for these English dailies. One daily wondered aloud “whether Justice Arundhati Roy was also a member of the bench” and another said “never-ending lectures” on the post-reform neoliberal economy had the “intellectual depth of a JNU postgrad”.

The offending portions of the orders had traced the root cause of the Maoist insurgency in Chhattisgarh to “the culture of unrestrained selfishness and greed spawned by modern neoliberal economic ideology” and blamed generation of black money on a “greed-is-good” culture promoted by the “neoliberal ideologues”. It helps to know that both the orders came from the same bench – of justices B Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar.

In the process, Arundhati Roy too had to be denounced. When the attack on Team Anna was at its peak in April, she wrote that the era of “liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation” had led to a situation where “our rivers, mountains, forests, minerals, water supply, electricity and communication system have been sold to private corporations” and corruption had “grown exponentially”.

What Roy said or what the judges said was not without a solid basis. The Maoists may have their own political agenda and the seeds of which may have been planted much before the liberalisation era began, but if they acquired a deadly edge in the recent years it was only because the tribals decided to join their war. What was it that made the tribals wage a war on the side of the Maoists against their own government? The straight and simple answer is: denial of their rights and handing over their home, the forests bearing rich mineral resources, to the private sector.

As Roy pointed out, several states witnessing the Maoist insurgency now signed hundreds of secret MoUs gifting away forests and mines bearing iron ore, coal and bauxite. Chhattisgarh alone signed more than 100 of such MoUs. In the process, thousands of tribals lost their home, with little or no compensation. Many more thousands face such a prospect. In Dantewada, several villages were handed over to Essar Steel and Tata Steel a few years ago to set up steel plants without the consent of the tribals as mandated by the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996. Any wonder the district turned into a deadly battlefield?

The same law also provides “ownership” of the forest produce to the tribals but the tribals still get a paltry sum as “wage” for collecting tendu leaves (see our latest issue) even though the trade is controlled by the state. The Salwa Judum and its fallout, which was the subject the apex court was dealing with while “lecturing” on neoliberal policies, began in 2004 in Bijapur over a fight over better wages for these leaves.

Since then, Chhattisgarh has zealously followed the World Bank dictated neoliberal policies. The river Sheonath has been handed over to a private company, denying tribals access to its water or fish. Several thermal power companies have been handed over coal bearing forest land, the latest being those coming under the “no-go” area of Hasdeo-Arand bio-diversity zone. Recently, a minister’s son, a tribal himself, was found buying tribal lands on behalf of a private company to overcome legal restrictions on sale of tribal lands to non-tribals.

But you will not find these stories in the English dailies which have taken the cudgel on behalf of the government, defending all its follies with a degree of conviction and vigour not seen in recent memory. 

Why we need ‘right to recall’ the elected

They aren’t the sovereigns for five years

Prasanna Mohanty | August 17 2011, Governance Now column

The prime minister thinks Anna Hazare’s fast to press for a stronger Lokpal Bill is an affront to parliament, a challenge to the highest democratic institution of the country. He left nothing to imagination when he told parliament on Wednesday, "All of us agree that the Lokpal Bill should be passed by parliament. The question is who drafts the law and who passes the law. Hazare wants to impose his Jan Lokpal Bill on parliament."

Two senior union ministers, P Chidambaram and Kapil Sibal, have described Anna’s action “undemocratic” and “unconstitutional” and that “laws can’t be made by social activists in a maidan”.

Congress spokesman Manish Tiwari likened Anna’s action to “tyranny of unelected and unelectable”.

Two things come out very clearly in this discourse and also in the manner Anna was first refused a place to hold his fast, then given a conditional clearance but arrested before he could begin his fast on the plea that he posed a “threat” to public order.

One is that Anna’s movement for a stronger Lokpal is ultra vires of our constitution and the constitutional rights of our elected representatives to make laws. And two, once elected, our representatives are free for the next five years to do what they please.

For example, the prime minister or and cabinet colleagues haven’t yet explained why the Lokpal Bill is pending for the past 42 years if the government is indeed keen to fight corruption in spite of rampant corruption in the country. And they haven’t yet explained why if Anna has a right to protest he was made to beg for a site to protest and why 22 conditions were put, which included the number of people who can join the fast and the time limit for the protest. On many occasions the apex court of the country has said arbitrary imposition of prohibitory orders is “violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens”.

Evidently, the government of the day is interpreting constitution and democracy in a manner that undermines their very concept.

It is worth reminding the meaning of the constitution. The very preamble reads: “We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens….”

The meaning is clear. We, the people of this country, have given this constitution to ourselves to govern ourselves in a particular manner.

And that manner stems from our belief in democracy – a system of governance of the people, for the people and by the people.

Parliament and our elected representatives, therefore, have been given constitutional powers to make laws on our behalf, the people of India, to make laws. They are not sovereigns unto themselves. They are subject to people’s will and wishes.  And that is why elections are held every five years.

To arrogate that the “elected” representatives have the sovereign right to make whatever law they want to make or that they are immune from public will and wish for the intervening five years is a flawed understanding of our democratic set up and the constitution that we have adopted.

That lesson needs to be driven to the elected representatives.

And what better way than to bring in a “right to recall” law to make sure those who willfully violate people’s trust, or so arrogate themselves as to be completely disconnected with what people want and think which the Anna’s movement has exemplified so clearly?

If we can have a right to recall law for our civic bodies, as is the case in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, we should also have such a law for our MPs and MLAs too.

What Anna Hazare wants

His fast-unto-death may be way to ensure greater say for people in policy-making

Governance Now/column/ April 08 2011

The indefinite fast by 72-year-old social activist Anna Hazare is the beginning of a new phenomenon, which is, insistence of the civil society to have a decisive say in the way laws and policies are framed and finalised in the country. His fight is as much to bring about this shift as to fight corruption.

For quite some time, civil society activists, including some of the National Advisory Council members like Aruna Roy and RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal have been asking the government to conduct pre-legislative, pre-policy formulation consultations with people in whose name such policies and laws are made. The government has ignored it.

The immediate provocation for Hazare to go on fast is to force the government to bring in an apex corruption watchdog, the Lokpal. For 42 long years, the government has been dithering on the Lokpal on of some or other pretext. Eight bills introduced in Lok Sabha ever since such a proposal was made by the administrative reforms commission headed by Morarji Desai in 1996 have lapsed. The real reason is, however, the reluctance of the political and administrative executive to subject themselves to a powerful watchdog.

Why Hazare wants redrafting of the Lokpal Bill
The latest draft of the Lokpal Bill is a toothless recommendatory body with no suo motu power to inquire into corruption. It only covers the political executive but not the bureaucracy.
Hazare and his associates want several changes. One, they want Lokpal to have suo motu power to register FIR, investigate and prosecute the suspects. Two, it should be an independent, permanent and constitutional body. Three, appointment of the Lokpal should involve consultation with people and transparent.
Why government is not willing
To begin with, the political parties don’t want a powerful corruption watchdog. Secondly, they don’t want people’s involvement in policy and law formulation as that would, they fear, encroach on their job of legislating laws and making policies.
Why Hazare is upset with GoM on Lokpal
Hazare has questioned the motive of the government by saying that since the GoM includes ministers who have serious corruption charges against them, including Sharad Pawar, he doesn’t expect the GoM to do an honest job.
What he wants
He wants equal representation of the civil society in the committee to redraft the bill. The ruling Congress party has dismissed this suggestion saying that there is no such precedent and it encroaches on the legislative’s domain.

Why the government said his fast is premature and unnecessary
This is ridiculous. Hazare was to go on fast on March 5. He deferred it for a month when the prime minister intervened. He went ahead with fast because he was unsatisfied with the response of the prime minister in his subsequent meeting. Besides, the demand for Lokpal has been going on since 1966. So, his demand is netiher premature nor unnecessary, especially when the UPA II government is beseized with several massive corruption cases - 2G scam, CWG scam, Isro spectrum scam, Adarsh scam and so on.

Making sense of Odisha

Book Review: A richly illustrated and scholarly work that peeks at history, religion, sculpture, architecture, art, music and literature of the state

          

 

Imaging Odisha (in 2 volumes)

Pages: 908

Price: Rs 4,400

Publisher: Prafulla

In his ‘foreword’ to the book, noted Hindi poet-critic Ashok Vajpeyi captures the essence of Odisha and what this book, Imaging Odisha, is all about: “As one goes through the contents of this magnificently edited book, one is struck by the fact that in a deeply moving and memorable sense Odisha is India in all its rich plurality, its deep contradictions and anxieties, its visions and imaginations, its negotiations and cultural rootings. To know Odisha in its complexities and depths is almost to know India in a significant and uplifting way. The book helps you know this at many levels powerfully and sensitively. I have not seen any other book on a state which reveals, explores and illuminates it in such depth and range by so many diverse hands and with such a variety of viewpoints”.

He might have added that Imaging Odisha also makes one long for more – more research into the state’s rich and bewildering array of pre, ancient and medieval archaeological sites, cultural motifs, rock shelters and arts, inscriptions; tribal-Hindu cultural synthesis that finds its manifestation in the Jagannath cult, Buddhist and Tantrik traditions and architecture; its performing arts, crafts, literature and much more.

In fact, the state’s historical, religious and cultural narratives are so sketchy and grossly underexplored that it is difficult to get a proper sense of what Odisha actually is all about. Imaging Odisha tries to fill that vacuum and does an admirable work in capturing the entire gamut within those limitations, and hence, a sense of craving for more. Once those limitations are realized and kept in mind, it is easy to sit down to enjoy the magnificently produced volumes edited by eminent Indologist and German scholar Professor Hermann Kulke who has been studying Odisha for more than four decades. He was earlier associated with two Orissa Research Projects sponsored by the German Research Council in 1970-75 and 1999-2005. He was awarded with Padma Shri in 2010 for literature and education. Several other scholars, including Professor GN Dash, Dr Nivedita Mohanty, Dr Dinanath Pathy, Professor JK Nayak assisted Kulke in generating and writing the content.

The first thing that hits one about this book, brought out by Prafulla, a Odisha-based publisher, is its format. The volumes have the size, look, feel and design of a typical coffee-table book. That explains the high price tag. There are plenty of photographs, illustrations, paintings capturing Odisha through the ages, some of which are rare and unseen and sourced from the museums abroad. But the content is scholarly, written by some of the better known Odisha experts, 27 of whom are non-Indians (including Professor Paul Yule of University of Heidelberg who studied Sisupalgarh, ancient India’s amazing fortified city that served as one of emperor Ashoka’s administrative centre in the then Kalinga). There are 149 articles and boxes and 65 authors in all. Volume I is devoted to Odisha’s history, religion, architecture and sculpture while volume II is about language and literature, performing arts, festivals, visual arts, sartorial traditions, handicrafts, culinary arts and natural heritage.

Strangely, it offers very little contemporary political history of the state and how it has shaped it. There is just one chapter on Odisha’s political journey since 1947 which stops at 1990. Much as the narratives of its past, the narrative of its present doesn’t shed adequate light on where Odisha is headed for and why.

Nevertheless, it is a truly impressive work that fills a vacuum long felt by those who are interested in knowing more about Odisha. For that, one person richly deserves the kudos. PK Dash, the managing editor of the volumes who in his duty hours chases political parties and candidates as director-general in charge of election expenditures in the Election Commission of India and pursues his literary and cultural interests outside of it. It was his brainchild and he untiringly laboured for a decade to make it happen.