life in general: one of the most corrupt state governments in india

Haryana's current state government is, in my understanding of state politics in India, one of the most corrupt ones. It is a Congress government and according to me operates in as opaque and un-democratic manner as BJP's (Bharatiya Janata Party) governments in the states of Karnataka and Gujarat and BSP's (Bahujan Samaj Party) government in Uttar Pradesh. 


Below is a recent insightful news feature in Open magazine that details Haryana's Congress government's fanatical attempts to cover the corrupt tracks leading to its chief minister, B S Hooda.


The Congress government in the Centre is playing a deliberate silent spectator as undoubtedly a portion of the kickbacks earned in Haryana would be filling the coffers of the party in the Centre.


http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/why-is-hooda-afraid-of-the-cbi

Why Is Hooda Afraid of the CBI?

And why his state Congress government is trying every crooked trick in the book to stall a CBI inquiry into charges of largescale corruption brought to light by a whistleblower forest officer


By Jay Mazoomdaar


Sanjiv Chaturvedi did’t see it coming. In the beginning, the whistleblower IFS officer thought he was fighting petty private interests skimming off taxpayers’ money and flouting wildlife norms. Five years on, he is up against pretty much the entire Haryana state machinery.

Last December, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) wrote to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) that the CBI was ready to probe plantation scams worth several crores, a number of violations of forest and wildlife laws, and the motive of the Haryana government in slapping fabricated charges on the whistleblower who had flagged off these irregularities. The CVC advised the MoEF ‘to take up the matter of registration of FIR with the state government and subsequent transfer of the case to the CBI’.

For two months, Minister for Environment and Forests Jayanthi Natarajan sat on the CVC memorandum. After all, the corruption cases in question involved Haryana CM BS Hooda’s office, his cabinet colleague Kiran Choudhry, and nearly a dozen IFS and IAS officers. Then, after Natarajan received a few calls from the media, her ministry wrote to the state government last week, not asking it to register FIRs, but seeking its opinion on the issue. 

Over the past five years, the Haryana government has made several attempts at defending itself against Chaturvedi’s charges. Each time, the central authorities have found its defence inadequate, even “misleading”. In fact, when the case was referred to the CVC in June last year, MoEF secretary T Chatterjee noted why “it may not be prudent to request the state government to further investigate as their stand is quite clear,” which was “rhetorical…without any documentary support”

+++

A Congress minister deferring to the clout of a party strongman is not surprising. What is shocking is the extent to which the Hooda government has gone to scuttle a probe into what seemed, in the beginning, to be departmental cases of embezzlement and violation of rules in private interest. But surely, Hooda knows better because his government has been recklessly bending rules to hound the whistleblower.

I met Sanjiv Chaturvedi in August 2007, just a week into his suspension. As a Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), he had annoyed the then forest minister Kiran Choudhry by broaching two instances of irregularity and corruption—construction of an irrigation canal through Saraswati wildlife sanctuary without statutory clearance, and investment of public money in a herbal park on land belonging to, among others, an MLA who is now Chief Parliamentary Secretary (Forest).

So blatant were the violations that PC Rawat, then Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) of Haryana, could not issue an outright denial. “Not a big violation” was all he said on camera. Chief Wildlife Warden RD Jakati and his fuming minister refused to even go on record.

Soon, NGO Wildlife Trust of India went to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of the Supreme Court in the sanctuary case. In July 2008, CEC member-secretary MK Jiwrajka agreed, in his report, that ‘the construction works were started a) without obtaining approval under the Forest Conservation Act; b) in violation of the provision of the Wildlife Protection Act and c) without obtaining… permission from the honourable Supreme Court.’

Yet, Jiwrajka absolved the accused and closed the case because “on a suggestion made by the CEC, the irrigation department has voluntarily deposited Rs 1 crore…for undertaking conservation and protection work”. This, after the Haryana government had spent Rs 2.2 crore to pay lawyers in the case to defend the violations.

The CEC’s mandate, however, does not allow it to give a clean chit, or offer compromise solutions, to anyone found guilty. The apex court’s notification on its terms of reference clearly states that the CEC will ‘place its recommendations before the [Supreme] Court for orders’.

In April 2008, NGO Ekta Parishad moved court in the herbal park case. In August, the Prime Minister’s Office sought a response from the state. The Hooda government did not oblige. Instead, it transferred the management of the private land to the forest department in February 2009. The CEC in its October 2009 report exonerated the state. But transfer of management under Section 38 of the Indian Forest Act, 1972, does not affect ownership of the land. The case is still with the Supreme Court.

+++

Chaturvedi’s suspension order, approved by the CM in August 2007 without seeking his explanation, did not cite any grounds. When the state failed to substantiate the order in a mandatory detailed report to the Centre, the MoEF concluded that the suspension was “not sustainable, as the grounds…were not found to be justified”. The President of India revoked the suspension in January 2008.

But Chaturvedi had also been served a chargesheet by the state government soon after he was suspended. Even after his suspension had been revoked, Haryana did not withdraw the chargesheet. In August 2008, then principal secretary (forest) recommended that the charges be dropped because Chaturvedi was only doing his duty. But forest minister Choudhry returned the file to PCCF Rawat’s office for further comments. It would stay there for 15 months—that is, till Choudhry was forest minister.

Suspension lifted, Chaturvedi waited for six months before the state put him in a non-cadre post, but the move was stayed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. He was finally posted as DFO, Jhajjar, in January 2009.

Within one month in Jhajjar, he unearthed a fake plantation scam worth several crores. A chargesheet was served on 40 forest staffers, and 10 were suspended. Suspecting involvement of senior officers, Chaturvedi insisted on a vigilance probe. Instead, the Chief Minister’s Office had him transferred to Hisar in August 2009.

Two weeks in Hisar, Chaturvedi unearthed yet another plantation scam, and confronted his seniors by repeatedly seeking permission to initiate criminal proceedings for the embezzlement of public funds. Things came to a head in January 2010 when Chaturvedi sealed a large plywood unit that had, in collusion with senior forest officers, deposited Rs 26,000 instead of Rs 22 lakh, as licence fee.

The Chief Minister’s Office responded by declaring his post vacant when he was away on official training for 18 days in March 2010. After a month without a posting, Chaturvedi was made DFO (production) in the same division.

+++

Captain Ajay Singh Yadav succeeded Choudhry as the state forest minister after the November 2009 Assembly polls. PCCF Rawat had retired. In the next five months, two successive PCCFs and then Financial Commissioner (forest department) recommended that the charges be dropped against Chaturvedi. The new Forest minister was unmoved.

In April 2010, Keshni Anand Arora, a trusted officer of Kiran Choudhry’s in the tourism department, became the new Financial Commissioner (forest department). On Arora’s recommendation, an inquiry officer was appointed in May 2010, nearly three years after the chargesheet was slapped on Chaturvedi.

The inquiry meant that Chaturvedi would not be promoted, sent on deputation or even be allowed to quit the service. His next promotion was due in months. After nine years in the IFS, he was keen to leave Haryana on a central deputation. He was already saddled with a range of false cases, from the ridiculous (stealing a Kachnar tree) to the alarming (abetment to suicide). Even his personal life was not spared and he was described as a ‘person of a (sic) dubious character’ in the chargesheet.

His back against the wall, Chaturvedi appealed to the MoEF in May 2010 but got no response. By August, Chaturvedi was desperate and wrote to the President. In September, the Cabinet Secretariat asked the MoEF to take ‘appropriate action’ and the ministry set up a two-member inquiry committee.

+++

The inquiry ran into several hurdles. The IFS division in the MoEF tried to undermine the probe by issuing a ‘note’ instead of an ‘order’ while instituting the committee. Then, asked to comment, para-wise, on Chaturvedi’s charges within ten days, the Haryana government took 51 days to reply. Since an inquiry was already going on, the voluminous reply argued, the Centre would have to ‘kindly wait’.

It did not. Additional Inspector General Shally Ranjan submitted her report on 8 December, recommending that the Central Government quash the ‘fabricated chargesheet’ against Chaturvedi and send a strong directive to the state asking it to order a CBI inquiry ‘to prosecute the real culprits’. However, Inspector General (forest department) AK Srivastava, Ranjan’s senior colleague in the panel, and MoEF Secretary Vijai Sharma subsequently dropped the word ‘CBI’ from their file notes.

Then Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh decided to give the Haryana government one more chance. On 18 January 2011, the state reiterated its stand, without furnishing any new details. The next day, the MoEF issued an order. The President quashed the chargesheet against Chaturvedi.

+++

Snubbed twice by Presidential orders, the Hooda government was still unfazed. In March 2011, a belligerent state forest minister Ajay Yadav wrote to Ramesh, requesting him to ‘institute an enquiry in the matter of quashing the chargesheet and especially the tone, tenor and contents of the enquiry report’.

Around the same time, Chaturvedi also wrote to the MoEF, seeking a CBI probe into the irregularities he had been pointing out all along. In April 2011, the ministry sent a confidential note to the CEC seeking its opinion.

The MoEF inquiry report had recommended that the 2007 CEC order in the Saraswati wildlife sanctuary case be immediately challenged in the Supreme Court as it ‘rendered the punitive clauses’ of forest and wildlife laws ‘infructuous’ and could set a bad precedent.

Citing these ‘adverse criticisms’, CEC member-secretary Jiwrajka refrained from offering any ‘advice in the matter’ and added that ‘the decision taken by the CEC’ in the Saraswati wildlife sanctuary case ‘does not preclude either the MoEF or the state from initiating penal action’ or approaching the SC.

In June 2011, MoEF secretary Chatterjee noted that ‘the documentary evidence submitted by Shri Chaturvedi is robust and in clinching support of his allegations’and that there was ‘need for an independent investigation’. Accordingly, Ramesh replied to his Haryana counterpart’s letter, dismissing his protestations on the quashed chargesheet and informing him that the MoEF was seeking the advice of the CVC on an investigation into the charges made by Chaturvedi.

+++

The Haryana government was not ready to give up yet.

A few days after receiving Chaturvedi’s dossier of allegations, Prabhat Kumar, director, CVC, wrote a note on 13 July to the MoEF, observing that Chaturvedi’s complaints were ‘serious in nature’ and that the ministry should take up the issue of his protection with the state. The same day, in another note for his boss Additional Secretary Hari Kumar, he concluded that a ‘CBI inquiry may not be required at all as the matter has already been considered by CEC and the elements of corruption angle (sic) is not prominently there’. The Additional Secretary agreed.

Vigilance commissioner R Sri Kumar was not convinced and decided to seek the opinion of the CBI. On 1 November, the CBI said it was willing to probe all charges, but the letter was acknowledged by Prabhat Kumar’s office after a month. On 16 December, the CVC finally wrote to the MoEF.

Chaturvedi is still waiting. After 10 transfers since 2007, he is still very much a pariah in the Hooda administration and does not feel safe in Haryana. He is waiting for a central deputation, for a CBI probe, for Union Minister Jayanthi Natarajan to do what is right.

It has been five years.

BRAZEN IN BENDING RULES Haryana Chief Minister BS Hooda (in black) with forest minister Kiran Choudhry

life in general & financial markets: in the name of development

A new instance of grave violation of human rights in the name of development occurred a few days. Below is a report that came in my mailbox that provides the details. The company involved in this particular is Jindal Steel, one of the large-cap listed stocks on Indian stock exchanges, and ironically its promoter or group company is also a large donor to Anna Hazare's India Against Corruption (IAC) campaign. Says a lot about the major financiers behind IAC.

The report that I got in my mailbox:

From: Anivar Aravind
Date: 1 February 2012 20:27
Subject: [OrissaConcerns] Fwd: JOINT STATEMENT ON BRUTAL CORPORATE ATTACK ON PEACEFUL PROTESTERS IN ODISHA
To: connect

JOINT STATEMENT ON BRUTAL CORPORATE ATTACK ON PEACEFUL PROTESTERS IN ODISHA.

We are extremely shocked and distressed over the barbaric inhuman violence on peaceful protesters especially woman by the security guards and hired goons of Jindal steel plant in Angul, Odisha.  There has been series of attacks on unarmed peaceful protesters against forcibly land grab all over Odisha. On 25th January 2012 when the entire Nation was gearing up for the Republic day celebrations and the Indian ruling classes, the big business and the corporate media was busy trumpeting the arrival of India major economical power house these recurring brutal violence by the corporate goons on mass movements in ODISHA exposes the hollowness of our rulers claim of India being the world largest democracy.

On 25th January 2012 around four thousand men and women went to Jindal Steel Plant, Angul to demand a justified compensation for the land forcibly grabbed from them and also to demand jobs which was promise to them both by the Company and Odisha Government. When the procession arrived in the factory security guard of the Jindal Steel Company and hired goons brutally attacked men and women especially women who were in the front against the struggle. The barbaric scene is difficult to explain to in words. In front of a large posse of police the hired goons in the security guards of Company attached them with iron rods and stick. Fatally injuring more than two hundred men and women, many of them are now admitted in SCB Medical College, Cuttack and different hospitals in Angul. Women were beaten ruthlessly with iron rods their cloths were torn, they were bleeding profusely, the bestiality of the goons reached most shocking and appalling limits when some of them inserted iron rods into the private parts of the women. There is nothing much to say after this about the great proclamation of Odisha Chief Minister about the so called great peaceful industrialization of Odisha. When an FIR was lodged the local police station, none of the senior executive of the company including the CEO was arrested except the token arrest of the security officer. This incident is a horrifying indicator of the growing state and corporate attacks on peaceful mass movement of Odisha. In November 2011, the hired goons of POSCO in front of a large contingent of police men attacked the peaceful protesters of the Anti-POSCO struggle in Jagatsinghpru District Odisha, with bombs killing one an injuring many.

We strongly condemn this dastardly attack on peace protesters against Jindal Steel Company in Odisha, we demand immediate arrest of the CEO and other senior executive of Jindal Steel Plant registering criminal case against them for brutally attacking people injuring men and women. We demand the dismissal and trial of all the policemen, who was present during this inhuman shameful incident including SP of the district.

We appeal to all the progressive, democratic, Human Rights and Women’s Organizations to condemn the incidents and demand action against the culprits.

Prafulla Samantara                                NAPM / Lok Shakti Abhiyan
Sudhir Patnaik                                      Editor, Samadrusti
Ajit Jha                         Samajwadi Jan Parishad
Kiran Saheen                            Media Action Group, Delhi
Sehenaz Malek             Arman Mahila Sangathan, Ahmedabad
Mamata Das                             NFFPW / POSCO Pratirodh Solidarity, Delhi
Subrat Kumar Sahu                  POSCO Pratirodh Solidarity, Delhi
Asit Das                                   POSCO Pratirodh Solidarity, Delhi
Bhanumati Gochhait                  POSCO Pratirodh Solidarity, Delhi
Rita Kumari                              Pravasi Nagarik Manch, Delhi
Ranjeet Thakur             Journalist, Uttarakhand
P.K. Sunderam                         Research Scholar, JNU
Anivar Aravind                       Moving Republic, bangalore

life in general: anti-corruption lokpal bill logjam in indian parliament

I came across  a good insight of some of the issues surrounding the logjam the anti-corruption Lokpal Bill finds itself in Indian Parliament currently. I share below the entire write-up that provided the insight.

http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/separated-at-birth/2012/01/02/team-anna%E2%80%99s-selective-indignation/#disqus_thread

Team Anna’s selective indignation

The year 2012 will be the year of the Lokpal and a slew of other legislations to combat corruption. Politicos may not want it. But they’re destined to have it.

I say this because I am not a cynic. Yet, the fight against graft wouldn’t succeed the way people want without the civil society being a little more flexible and the political class a lot more accommodative. There are limits to adversity; cooperation without standing on prestige could be boundless.

Much has been made of the Rajya Sabha logjam over the Lokpal Bill. Critics including those on Anna’s team would have one believe that all’s lost. But that isn’t true. The Bill continues to be the property of the House and the debate on it is inclusive. The government has no option but to have the unfinished business transacted when the Council of States reassembles for the Budget Session starting February.

I found for this reason a longish article Prashant Bhushan wrote in The Hindu on Monday a trifle short on facts and objective inferences. The activist-lawyer wrote the Rajya Sabha was prorogued on December 29 while it actually was adjourned sine die by Chairman Hamid Ansari.

The point needs to be clarified for an informed public discourse. Presidential summons are needed to convene a prorogued House. The Chairman can bring it into session if it’s adjourned sine die.

Like Bhushan, many in the Opposition have been critical of what transpired that night. But a vote in the House where the Government stood hugely outnumbered would have endorsed the Opposition’s truncated version of the law.

Would Anna’s advisors have been okay with a law that set up a Lokpal at the Centre but struck down the chapter relating to State Lokayuktas?

Prashant’s silence on this is a puzzle because Mamata Banerjee’s revolt was against what anti-graft campaigners are seeking — ombudsmen in provinces vide a central legislation under Article 253 of the Constitution.

I’ve heard Kiran Bedi say umpteen times in TV debates that the government was duty bound to follow the route as a signatory to the UN convention against corruption. Why then are civil society leaders not talking about this major flaw in the Bill the Upper House could have passed and sent for reconsideration to the Lok Sabha that earlier voted for a different version.

That the amended Bill would also have found favor in the Lower House was obvious from the BSP-SP-TMC lineup witnessed in the Rajya Sabha along with the Left and the BJP.

The government’s version passed in the first instance in the Lok Sabha was essentially on account of the TMC voting in support and the BSP-SP abstaining. That wouldn’t have happened in the repeat vote. Parties would have stuck to the Rajya Sabha pattern to defeat the government.

The result: a draconian Lokpal at the Centre and no Lokayuktas in States where they don’t exit and timid copies where they do. It was a trap the Opposition laid for the UPA and the civil society while swearing by federalism and pretending to back a strong Lokpal.

It’s this contradiction that leaves one wonderstruck by Bhushan’s silence on the issue and his partisan dissection of the December 29 events. Democracy wasn’t murdered in the House that night. It was mob-lynched by parties paying lip-sympathy to Team Anna.

One presumes the good lawyer and the doughty ex-cop are aware also of the amendment— carried earlier in the Lok Sabha at the Opposition’s bidding— exempting presiding officers’ (Speaker and Chairman) from reporting to the Lokpal on action-taken against MPs’ probed for their conduct outside the House. About time Team Anna did some plain speak on these points.

Posted by Vinod Sharma on Monday, January 2, 2012 at 6:49 pm

life in general: undemocratic, dictatorial government of India

Criminal Procedure Code sections were applied by the Delhi Police, under instructions from the home ministry of the central government of India, in arresting civil activists Anna Hazare, Kiran Bedi, Arvind Kejriwal and a few other aides of Hazare, today morning.

These activists intended to hold a protest in Delhi against the weak anti-corruption legislation being put to vote by the government of India.

This is the latest incident of the government of India has been directly or indirectly acted against civil activists. There have been several similar instances all over the country, many of which go unreported in the mainstream media.

I am sure that the Congress party and other political parties which form part of the ruling alliance in the central government of India, will not be able to get away with their undemocratic, dictatorial acts for too long. 

Not that alternatives such as Hindu-extremist Bharatiya Janata Party, the Left parties and others are much better. The peformance of their governments in a few states where they won the state elections are not less dictatorial. But the Congress party cannot be allowed to get away with fast degeneration of democratic principles. 

Immediately below is a newsreport on Anna Hazare's arrest by the Delhi police, and following it is another commentary on the unfair restrictions which Anna Hazare and his followers were being asked to comply with.

1)

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/anna-hazare-arvind-kejriwal-kiran-bedi-arrested/1/148165.html

Unfazed Anna Hazare fasts in police custody as protests in his support spread far and wide 

ITGD Bureau  | New Delhi, August 16, 2011 | 07:37

Anna Hazare; Protests against Anna's arrest.

Hours before he was to launch his fast against corruption, Anna Hazare was on Tuesday arrested by the Delhi Police, preventing him from going ahead with his proposed protest. Other prominent activists in the Lokpal Bill campaign - Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi and Shanti Bhushan - were also arrested.

Delhi Police personnel and Anna Hazare supporters near his residence.

Hazare and his associates were arrested under CrPC sections 107 and 151. Hazare, a 73-year-old Gandhian, was taken into custody from a residential area in Mayur Vihar before he was to proceed to the venue of his fast at J.P. Park, where prohibitory orders are in place.

My arrest won't stop protest: AnnaIn a CD relased by his team members after his arrest, Hazare urged people to carry on the fight against corruption through non-violent means.

"How can my arrest stop this agitation against corruption? My team will carry on the anti-corruption stir further and this fight will continue," he said.

"I appeal to the people to be non-violent and not damage any individual's or national property. Nobody should be hurt," Hazare urged.

Hazare fasts in police custodyHazare, Bedi and Kejriwal were brought to the Delhi Police Officers' Mess at Civil Lines after their arrest, where the Gandhian launched a fast. Hazare's team said he was not even taking water.

Protests in support of Hazare
Team Anna is planning to move the Supreme Court against the arrests. Meanwhile, there were reports of massive support pouring in for Hazare, with IIT Kharagpur students planning to go on a hunger strike.

Residents of Hazare's village Ralegan Siddhi took to the streets in protest. Scores of people trooped out of their homes soon after news of the arrest of Hazare and his team members reached the village, about 230 km from Mumbai.

There was a spontaneous shutdown in the village. Many villagers, including women, marched to the local Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation bus depot and raised slogans against the government.

While thousands of activists staged a march in Pune, a large number of protestors started a gathering near Dadar in Mumbai. An agitation is planned at Azad Maidan in Mumbai later on Tuesday where prominent activists, including Medha Patkar, are expected to congregate.

Union Home Secretary R.K. Singh said efforts were made in the morning to persuade Hazare to give up his proposed fast, but he refused to relent.

Cops tried to persuade AnnaAccording to sources, senior police officials, including DCP (Crime) Ashok Chand, met with Hazare in the morning at an East Delhi apartment, where he was staying, in a bid to convince him to not go ahead with his planned protest defying prohibitory orders at J.P. Park.

Emergency is back, cries Bedi
Flaying the police move, Bedi said: "Emergency has revisited the country. This is undemocratic and unconstitutional," she said.

Around 500 supporters were with Anna at the time of his arrest. Chanting 'Bharat Mata ki jai' and 'Vande Matram', they created hurdles in the way of police personnel as they were trying to take him to a nearby police station.

Government has become dictatorial: Prashant BhushanPrashant Bhushan, a key civil society member of the joint Lokpal Bill draft committee, said: "The government has become dictatorial. Democratic rights are being infringed upon, which will lead to more anger among the people."

Anna detention undemocratic: Ramdev
Baba Ramdev said the arrest of Anna Hazare was undemocratic.

Ahead of the proposed fast by the Gandhian, a group of people had thronged the East Delhi apartment where Hazare was staying to pledge their support to his protest. Security personnel, including some in plainclothes and some from the special branch, were deployed around the apartment premises.

Chetan Bhagat, Anupam Kher slam arrest
Author Chetan Bhagat said Hazare's arrest was a disastrous move by the government while actor Anupam Kher called it the saddest day for Indian democracy. Anupam Kher said, "Government has angered the common man."

PM holds CCPA meetPrime Minister Manmohan  Singh held a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs to take stock of the situation.

After the Delhi Police denied him permission to hold his fast, Hazare had on Monday given a call to his supporters to fill up jails all over the country if he is arrested.

Addressing a press conference after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh slammed him for resorting to fast as a protest when Parliament was seized of the Lokpal bill, the Gandhian had said he will go to J.P. Park in Delhi on Tuesday, the venue of his fast, even though the Delhi Police imposed prohibitory orders.

"If I am arrested, I will continue my hunger strike in jail. If I am released, I will go back to the venue and this circle will continue," he said.

Hazare said once he is arrested, people should fill up the jails in every village across the country. "Going to jail for the country is no crime...It is a decoration," he said.

He accused the Prime Minister of "speaking" the language of his ministerial colleague Kapil Sibal saying that the Lokpal bill was before Parliament which will take the call.

Before his press conference, the 73-year old activist had made an unscheduled visit to Rajghat on Monday, where he sat in meditation. Hundreds of supporters gathered around him.

The Delhi Police refused permission to Gandhian and his supporters, saying that Hazare's team refused to give an undertaking on restricting the number of days of protest and protesters besides four other conditions.

In his speech at the Red Fort on Monday morning, the prime minister decried Hazare going on fast and said Parliament alone will decide on Lokpal and those having grievances should approach Parliamentary Committees for airing their views.
-With inputs from Headlines Today and PTI

2)
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/lokpal-bill-anna-hazare-fast-democracy/1/148168.html

Protest is central to a democracy

Gyanant Singh | August 16, 2011 | 08:03

Delhi Police has put arbitrary restrictions on Anna's fast.

It is ironic that the capital of the largest democracy in the world has no place for public protest. One might not agree with Anna Hazare or like his mode of protest but the manner in which he has virtually been denied a right to sit for an indefinite fast protest against corruption cannot be justified in a democratic country like India.
The government may be right in claiming that it was its prerogative to draft or give a final shape to the Lokpal Bill but it will find it difficult to explain the use of its power to regulate protests to virtually stifle dissent being expressed in the form of a peaceful protest.
Since the proposed protest was against inaction on part of the executive, the government dealing with the group should clearly seem to be fair and reasonable.
Despite Anna having compromised on the venue for his much publicised 'indefinite' fast protest beginning today, the Delhi Police restricted the duration of his protest to three days at the 'rear portion' of the Jai Prakash Narayan Park on Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg.
Incidentally, the Anna-led group had given up the Jantar Mantar site and had decided to settle for another venue after it was stressed that no 'indefinite' protest could be allowed at Jantar Mantar as many organisations would want to hold protest at the site as the monsoon session of Parliament was in progress.
The new venue was agreed to between the Anna camp and the police after the latter stated that such a long protest could not be allowed at Jantar Mantar in view of the need for equitable distribution of space for protests by various groups.
In a letter on August 16, the Delhi Police said it had 'now been advised' that the venue could not be allotted beyond 'one or two days' due to legal and administrative constraints. It would,
however, persuade the land owning agency to extend the period to three days. To add insult to injury, Anna, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi have been asked to sign an undertaking that they would ensure that "the gathering does not exceed 4000/ 5000 persons". Apart from the fact that it would be beyond their control to predict the number of people unlike in political rallies where supporters are ferried to the venue, restricting the number of people to a maximum of 5,000 would amount to curtailing the rights of thousands of people who would like to voice their concern against corruption by going to the venue.
The right of people to visit the site to support the protest - which may be justified or unjustified - is independent of the right of Anna or his team.
With team Anna terming the restrictions as unconstitutional and gearing up to defy the Delhi Police diktats, Union minister Kapil Sibal quoted a Supreme Court judgment (1973 1 SCC 227) stating that "the right which flows from Art. 19(1)(b) is not a right to hold a meeting at any place and time". Though Sibal stopped at this, the next line of the judgment stresses that the state can only impose 'reasonable' restrictions in the interest of public order.
"Freedom of assembly is an essential element of a democratic system. The basic assumption in a democratic polity is that government shall be based on the consent of the governed," the Supreme Court has said in the judgment quoted by the minister.
It further stressed that free consent implied discussions and the right of citizens to "meet face to face with others for the discussion of their ideas and problems, and public streets are the 'natural' places for expression of opinion and dissemination of ideas." On limiting the crowd, Sibal said it could have been more if he had opted for far off Burari as the venue for protest. If this argument is taken to be valid, one cannot explain the symbolic march of our first freedom fighters from Meerut to Delhi in 1857 and repeated 'Delhi Chalo' refrain by protesters across the country.
Besides, the Delhi Police had initially agreed to venue. Sibal was further joined by his colleagues in the government to question the protest at a time when the Bill had already been introduced in Parliament.
The ministers reportedly stressed that Anna's demand was unconstitutional and his protest at this time was an affront to Parliament.
No doubt Parliament is an important institution but 'we the people' of the country also enjoy a special status in the Constitution.
Such a protest may not be justified in normal circumstances but to prevent it by imposing onerous conditions might be worse.

life in general & financial markets: (part 3) india's obsession with diesel cars

(part 1 dated 28 july 2010 of this series is here and part 2 dated 14 november 2010 is here)

I share below a latest statement from the Centre for Science and Environment on India's pathetic obsession with diesel cars.

Press Release

Finance Minister, it is time to take a decision to stop misuse of diesel subsidy by the rich diesel car owners. Any further delay will cost hugely to the nation and our health

New Delhi, February 18, 2011: India cannot afford to delay the decision to take away the current incentive for diesel cars given the public health and energy security implications -- the message that Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has for Pranab Mukherjee, as he gets set to present this year’s Budget.

CSE has drawn the attention of the Finance Minister to the recent trends that show that the car industry is on an overdrive to introduce more new diesel car models even in the small car segments that had not seen much diesel penetration earlier. The combination of cheap diesel and lure of lesser taxes on small cars will make the diesel car numbers explode now. Already, diesel cars constitute 36 per cent of new car sales – this is expected to be half soon. Since 2008, the price gap has increased from 28 per cent to 35 per cent in Delhi. It is deplorable that cars are not being made to pay the full costs when the oil companies are losing Rs 7-9 per litre of diesel.

Says Anumita Roychoudhury, head of CSE’s air pollution team: “CSE condemns this perverse subsidy. If the use of subsidised diesel continues to increase, the government will continue to incur a huge revenue loss as it earns much less from excise on a litre of diesel used by cars, as opposed to petrol.” The Union government earns more than three times higher excise revenue from every litre of petrol used by a petrol car compared to a litre of diesel used by a diesel car. Revenue losses will compound with increased share of diesel cars and SUVs. Only in Delhi, this revenue loss amounts to close to Rs 300 crore. This can be mammoth on a nation-wide basis. “The government cannot justify this,” adds Roychoudhury.

The car industry is spawning the myth that fuel-efficient diesel cars will help save fuels and lower climate impacts. On the contrary, the market trend clearly shows that diesel is aiding a steady shift towards bigger cars that guzzle more fuel. While 85 per cent of the petrol cars sold in India have less than 1,200 cc engines, 64 per cent of diesel cars are just under 1,500 cc; the rest are all above. Despite fuel efficiency, bigger engines will always use more fuel and cheaper diesel fuel will encourage customers to opt for bigger and more powerful cars and thus undermine energy security. Higher petrol prices have effectively kept its market predominantly in small car segment.

CSE cautioned that cheaper diesel fuel will always encourage bigger cars, more driving and more fuel guzzling in the rebound. The ongoing India assessment of the International Council on Clean Transportation shows that these trends can lead to a cumulative loss of 6.5 mtoe (million tonne of oil equivalent) of energy between 2010 and 2020. This equals the fuel use of all four-wheeled passenger vehicles in 2006 -- around 6.6 mtoe. This defeats the objective of improving India’s energy security.

Auto industry’s claim of greater fuel efficiency and lesser carbon emissions from diesel cars is unacceptable as diesel fuel has higher carbon content than petrol. If more diesel is burnt encouraged by its cheaper prices, more heat-trapping CO2 will escape. Also, black carbon emissions from diesel vehicles are several times more heat-trapping than CO2 and this nullifies fuel efficiency gains.

The car industry is pitching for tax concession for bigger cars and to stop increase in taxes on diesel cars in this budget when ‘clean’ diesel (diesel with less than 15 ppm of sulphur) is not available in the country.

CSE researchers demand that “the excise on big cars and SUVs must remain at 24 per cent and the special excise duty on bigger cars, MUVs and SUVs must be fully restored and increased in the forthcoming budget. This is a critical energy security measure.”

It is ironic that tax differential is being officially justified in the name of agriculture and freight, but rich car owners benefit more. Cars have already become the second biggest user of diesel and beneficiaries of the official tax policy. Cars use up 15 per cent of the total diesel in the country – compared to 12 per cent by buses and agriculture, 10 per cent by industry, and 6 per cent by the railways.

CSE has drawn attention of the Finance Minister to the global practices in which other governments have taken fiscal measures to discourage diesel in cars. In Brazil, diesel cars are actively discouraged because of the policy to keep taxes lower on diesel. In Denmark, diesel cars are taxed higher to offset the lower prices of diesel fuel. In China, taxes do not differentiate between petrol and diesel. The European Commission has calculated the difference in lifetime pollution costs of Euro IV compliant diesel car and petrol car. The total pollution cost of a Euro IV diesel car is 1,195 Euros vis-a-vis 846 Euros for a petrol car. This nullifies the marginal greenhouse gas reduction benefit of diesel car and costs higher to the society.

The Finance Minister can not afford to ignore the economic and environmental consequences of diesel pricing. Several committees including Kirit Parikh Committee have already recommended additional excise duty to eliminate the incentives arising from the lower diesel taxes.

Tax measures are absolutely necessary to discourage diesel cars until the time India introduced clean diesel (diesel fuel with 10 ppm sulphur used along with advanced emissions control systems) nation-wide. Otherwise, health risk associated with conventional diesel emissions is very serious. Some of the deadliest air toxics, also carcinogens, are related to diesel emissions. These are even blamed for killing unborn foetuses. According to WHO and other international regulatory and scientific agencies diesel particulates are carcinogens.

What CSE demands

• Additional, substantial and effective excide duty on diesel cars to prevent dieselization of car segment.
• Align small diesel car definition with that of petrol. Currently small petrol car is legally defined as one with length not exceeding 4,000 mm and with an engine capacity not exceeding 1,200 cc. For diesel small car this has been relaxed to 1,500 cc for diesel cars. Make it same as small petrol car for the purpose of tax measures.
• Fully restore 24 per cent excise and increase further the special duty on all big cars.
• Taxes must also begin to reflect the actual fuel use in cars to prevent shift towards bigger cars that use more fuel and threaten energy security.

For more details, please contact Anumita Roychoudhury at anumita@cseindia.org. To set up interviews with CSE researchers and experts, write to Papia Samajdar at papia@cseindia.org, or speak to her at 99108 64339.