December 04, 2011

life in financial markets: latest shareholding of mcx, ncdex & nmce

I present below the latest shareholding in three main commodity derivatives exchanges in India as compiled by me:



LATEST SHAREHOLDING IN:




MCX: Multi Commodity Exchange of India



NCDEX: National Commodity & Derivatives Exchange


NMCE: National Multi Commodity Exchange of India














MCX - As on August 9, 2011 NCDEX - As on June 30, 2011 NMCE - As on September 30, 2011
           
No. of paid up shares of face value Rs 10 each (in million) 50.99 No. of paid up shares of face value Rs 10 each (in million) 50.67 No. of paid up shares of face value Rs 10 each (in million) 19.11
Number of shareholders 854 Number of shareholders 13 Number of shareholders 12
           
Stake held by: (in %)   Stake held by: (in %)   Stake held by: (in %)  
Financial Technologies (India) 31.18 Jaypee Capital Services 22.38 Neptune Overseas 30.18
State Bank of India 5.18 Shree Renuka Sugars 12.50 Central Warehousing Corporation 29.70
FID Funds (Mauritius) 5.00 National Stock Exchange of India 11.10 Bajaj Holdings and Investment 12.82
Passport India Investments (Mauritius) 4.90 Life Insurance Corporation of India 11.10 Reliance Capital 8.72
IFCI 4.79 National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development 11.10 Punjab National Bank 8.12
Euronext N.V 4.79 Indian Farmer Fertiliser Cooperative 8.88 Gujarat Agro Industries Corporation 5.47
Aginyx Enterprises Ltd 4.79 Punjab National Bank 7.29 National Agriculture Co-operative Marketing Federation of India 3.92
Merrill Lynch Holdings (Mauritius) 4.79 Canara Bank 6.03 Anil S Singhania 0.87
Corporation Bank 3.48 Crisil 3.70 Kailash R Gupta 0.20
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development 3.06 IntercontinentalExchange Holdings 2.96 Shankarlal M Guru 0.0008
ICICI Emerging Sectors Fund 2.65 Goldman Sachs Inv (Mauritius) 2.96 National Institute of Agriculture Marketing 0.0005
National Stock Exchange of India 2.45 M K Ananda Kumar 0.000023 Gujarat State Agricultural Marketing Board 0.0005
Bennett, Coleman and Company 2.24 Narendra Kumar Gupta 0.000019    
GLG Financials Fund 1.92        
Intel Capital (Mauritius) 1.62        
Hariharan Vaidyalingam 1.06        
Union Bank of India 1.03        
HDFC Bank 1.03        
Bank of Baroda 1.03        
Bank of India 1.03        
Canara Bank 1.03        
New Vernon Private Equity Ltd 0.96        
Alexandra Mauritius Ltd 0.96        
Kotak Mahindra Trusteeship Services Ltd - A/c India Growth Fund, A Unit Scheme of SEAF India Fund 0.96        
MCX ESOP Trust 0.91        
Brand Equity Treaties 0.80        
Paras Ajmera 0.69        
State Bank of Mysore 0.51        
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 0.51        
State Bank of Hyderabad 0.51        
State Bank of Patiala 0.51        
State Bank of Travancore 0.51        
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd 0.51        
ICICI Lombard General Insurance 0.36        
HT Media 0.20        
IGSB-STAD I 0.17        
817 other shareholders 1.85        
Source: The three exchanges' filings with Registrar of Companies

November 29, 2011

life in general & financial markets: a veteran activist's insights into indian govt's handling of land acqusition & other policies

Land acqusition, unemployment, environmental degradation, social justice are critical issues India faces today. Below is an interview of Aruna Roy, a veteran and hands-on social activist, as published on an internet site, which provides useful insights into these issues.

Here is the interview.

http://www.countercurrents.org/baisakh281111.htm

28 November, 2011
Countercurrents.org
Magsaysay award winner Ms Aruna Roy has been the member of National Advisory Council (NAC) headed by the UPA Chairperson Ms Sonia Gandhi in both of its Avtars and has influenced several social policies of the country. Ms Roy, also the founder member of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), a people's organisation in Rajasthan recently visited to the proposed POSCO area in Jagatsingpur district in Odisha to observe the protest of people against the land acquisition there. Speaking to Pradeep Baisakh , she shares her observation on POSCO issue, on Land Acquisition Bill, on National Food security Bill and on the performance of MGNREGA in Odisha.
You recently visited proposed POSCO area in Jagatsingpur district of Odisha. Please share with us your observation.
Aruna Roy: The villagers in Dhinkia are completely opposed to the project, and are unwilling to give up any of their personal, or community land. Attempts by the state government for land acquisition are being made in a legal vacuum, as the MoU of the government with POSCO has been lapsed. This makes this forcible land acquisition morally and legally unjustified.
People's democratic voices shouldn't be crushed. People's consent is a must for establishing any industrial project. This is even more important in the context of the proposed new Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation legislation.
Thousands of trees are being felled by the district administration when the project does not legally exist (MoU is yet to be renewed). How far is this defensible?
Aruna Roy: Exactly that we have to say that now there is no legal ground. Reportedly, several thousand trees approximately 40-50,000 trees have already been chopped by the administration. The government is planning to cut lakhs trees like Casurina casuarinas, Jackfruit, Cashew nut and Mangroves. This tree cutting activities will leave the area exposed to cyclones and other environmental disasters in an area with a very sensitive ecology. Felling of trees is completely unacceptable.
We also have observed that people there want to work but there is no Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in the area. MGNREGA has to function as this is the right of every individual. No matter what for the people of Dhinkia have protested, it's still a part of India and people of the Panchayat are citizen of this country.
The Panchayat premises occupied by the police should be vacated. We also have said that the Sarpanch of Dhinkia panchayat, who has been suspended by the state government, should be reinstated. He cannot be suspended for what law requires him to do i.e. for holding Palli Sabhas (General body of the village). This is not a constitutional violation of any sort and this is not corruption.
National Food Security bill does not say about universal PDS. Even the draft recommended by the NAC does not guarantee universal food security despite the people like you, Jean Dreze (Now is no more a member of NAC) and Harsh Mander being the members of NAC?
Aruna Roy: The NAC draft says about 90% coverage. Actually universal PDS is something we all demanded, but somehow in the process of negotiation with the GoI, it got whittled down. This was one of the most painful processes and it has been very difficult to convince government.
The government actually did not look it as the right to food and health issue of people but from the point of view of problems in storage and procurement and from financial point of views. The government bill is quite disappointing and has taken away some of the vital recommendations of NAC e.g. the grievance redressal mechanism. They are for putting in UID and cash transfer in it, two things that NAC totally opposed because they are very dangerous. Recently Jean Dreze and Reetika Khera did a survey and came out with the fact that PDS is doing very well in Odisha and shown signs of revival in other states too. This shows that the system as it is can function.
What's your position on introduction of fortified food? Does not it lead to corporatisation of PDS?
Aruna Roy: It is totally unacceptable. What may be the fortified food and its new definition; you have enough nutritious food in the villages which will cater to the needs of the malnourished children. What's necessary is cooking is done and hot meal is provided. And that is the most important thing.
How do you react to the Supreme Court observation that the current Land Acquisition Law should rather be thrown away?
Aruna Roy: A new land acquisition law is coming which will replace the existing law. We have suggested that the first test of the land acquisition bill and the discussion should take place in Dhinkia Panchayat, because people have been displaced from there. All that is suggesting should now be tested in action. We suggest that there should be public hearing in Dhinkia itself on the project.
You have favoured a direct negotiation by the private corporate with people and acquire land in the new land acquisition law. Do not you think there is risk of people being intimidated and cheated in the process?
Aruna Roy: Now there are so much of private investments coming, if government acquires land for them, then it will go into that business. By effect something like Singur and Nadigram will be repeated. It should limit itself acquiring land for projects which serve public purpose e.g. for government offices, schools, hospitals.
If the government acquires land for the privates, then there will be creation of land bank like in Tamil Nadu and in Karnataka. And when the land bank is traded off, the person who is dispossessed of the land gets very little money than what profits are made there after. So it becomes a business. At one level it's much more difficult for people to oppose the government than to the private industries. The government should rather play the role of a regulator in such cases. It should regulate that no land is acquired below some market price, that anyone displaced in this process should get all rights covered by the Resettlement & Rehabilitation policies or laws.
You must be aware that CBI inquiry is going on in six districts of Odisha on the allegations of corruption in MGNREGA. So much of money is flushed under MGNREA to the state which is siphoned off and distressed migration in the KBK region and beyond is actually on the rise. Is it not wastage of public money when the state government is apathetic toward its implementation?
Aruna Roy: You cannot extrapolate the Odisha experience to the whole country. I think it's the administrative failure that people are not applying for work, people are not getting jobs in time. And if you do not receive application in time and you do not give wages in time, then people will go out looking for work. I really do think that there is a conspiracy in the government in general against NREGA because you cannot siphon off money as easily as you can do in other welfare works. If you look at other rural development work those have come to us, you cannot know where and how crores of money is being siphoned off. MGNREGA is the first programme that tells that the money is siphoned off. It is because NRGEA has made mandatory that the transparency and accountability is put into system.
Especially in the areas where there are Maoist influences or suspected Maoist influences it is more than necessary that this programme functions properly to bring in basic needs to the people and ensure that there is peace. Right to food and right to 100 days employment are guarantees against starvation and deaths.
What suggestion do you have for the Odisha government to improve the performance of MGNREGA?
Aruna Roy: I met the Chief Minister about three years ago. I made a presentation on the operation of NREGA in Rajsthan. I said if you paint the basic information of NREGA on walls, like how many job cards issued, and how many people have been given how much money –so translating the MIS to what we call it as JIS-Janata Information System. So you put it on wall, people will take care of it.
Secondly, work must be given in fifteen days time and give unemployment allowance in case of default. For making this work you need political will from the Chief Minister and bureaucratic will from the Chief Secretary and the Secretary from Principal Secretary, Rural Development. Unless you have a trigger of a dated acknowledgement receipt, followed by work and payment, things will not happen. It also means improving your MIS system, whether it means improving the system of payment, it must be done.
And I think any government that neglects NREGA that does with its own risk. So much money that comes in and this money it will provide even political benefit. But to neglect it, in my opinion, is not only a tragedy for the people but also it is dangerous for both administrative and political system.
Do you basically tell that political and administrative will in the state is lacking on issues relating to implementation of MGNREGA?
Aruna Roy: Well, It seems so.
You are the member of NAC in both of its avtars . Do you think that Ms Gandhi and the central government are using NAC as a ‘safety valve' to manage the rising discontent of people owing to the kind of public (economic) policies being pursued which has widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots?
Aruna Roy: I do not believe in horoscopes. So I cannot predict nor can I read. As an activist we ask and demand for many things. If in the first NAC there had been no common minimum programme which made the commitment to the people of India and for the first time after 25 years poor and issues of poor surfaced in the political discourse. Now, whatever may be the reason for their putting on this, for people like us its important to grab whatever space we have, catch them on their commitment and make them implement it. The NREGA, the RTI, the forest rights bill and the domestic violence bill all came out of it.
There is some polarity on what the government wants and what social policies demands. It which case, it should be boosted by our public demand. Ultimately if we believe violent revolution, then it's different matter. But if people want peaceful change, then we are also limited in the arenas in which we can get it. We have to make wider push as much as we can in whatever space we get. So those of us who have worked in this space that is provided have tried to push the system.
Pradeep Baisakh is a Freelance Journalist based in Bhubaneswar . He has extensively written on transparency law, right to work and food, environment issues, industrialisation and development, women, tribal rights etc. He can be contacted through e mail: 2006pradeep@gmail.com .
 

November 21, 2011

life in general: when police indiscriminately used pepper spray on peacefully protesting students in a US university

In a US university, students were protesting in the campus and occupied a pathway. A few police officers in full riot gear came and ordered the students to clear that pathway. The students chose not to, but held their grounds. The police officers then happened to get surrounded by a circle of students. Pepper spray was used on the sitting students at extremely close range -- it was being directly sprayed on the faces.

The police claims this surrounding was alarming for them and so they used the pepper spray to make way for themselves out of the circle. But as you watch the video that someone shot (one of many) that is given below, you will clearly notice that the commanding police officer cooly walked out of the circle first (and was not stopped) and then started spraying the students.

There is currently outrage in the US over the police act under instructions from the university administration.

Below is the video and a report by a student.

Video taken from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuWEx6Cfn-I





http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/20/ten-things-you-should-know-about-fridays-uc-davis-police-violence/

1. The protest at which UC Davis police officers used pepper spray and batons against unresisting demonstrators was an entirely nonviolent one.
None of the arrests at UC Davis in the current wave of activism have been for violent offenses. Indeed, as the New York Times reported this morning, the university’s administration has “reported no instances of violence by any protesters.” Not one.
2. The unauthorized tent encampment was dismantled before the pepper spraying began.
Students had set up tents on campus on Thursday, and the administration had allowed them to stay up overnight. When campus police ordered students to take the tents down on Friday afternoon, however, most complied. The remainder of the tents were quickly removed by police without incident before the pepper spray incident.
3. Students did not restrict the movement of police at any time during the demonstration.
After police made a handful of arrests in the course of taking down the students’ tents, some of the remaining demonstrators formed a wide seated circle around the officers and arrestees.
UC Davis police chief Annette Spicuzza has claimed that officers were unable to leave that circle: “There was no way out,” she told the Sacramento Bee. “They were cutting the officers off from their support. It’s a very volatile situation.” But multiple videos clearly show that the seated students made no effort to impede the officers’ movement. Indeed, Lt. Pike, who initiated the pepper spraying of the group, was inside the circle moments earlier. To position himself to spray, he simply stepped over the line.
4. Lt. Pike was not in fear for his safety when he sprayed the students.
Chief Spicuzza told reporters on Thursday that her officers had been concerned for their safety when they began spraying. But again, multiple videos show this claim to be groundless.
The most widely distributed video of the incident (viewed, as I write this, by nearly 700,000 people on YouTube) begins just moments before Lt. Pike begain spraying, but another video, which starts a few minutes earlier, shows Pike chatting amiably with one activist, even patting him casually on the back.
The pat on the back occurs just two minutes and nineteen seconds before Pike pepper sprayed the student he had just been chatting with and all of his friends.
5. University of California Police are not authorized to use pepper spray except in circumstances in which it is necessary to prevent physical injury to themselves or others. 
From the University of California’s Universitywide Police Policies and Administrative Procedures: “Chemical agents are weapons used to minimize the potential for injury to officers, offenders, or other persons. They should only be used in situations where such force reasonably appears justified and necessary.”
6. UC police are not authorized to use physical force except to control violent offenders or keep suspects from escaping.
Another quote from the UC’s policing policy: “Arrestees and suspects shall be treated in a humane manner … they shall not be subject to physical force except as required to subdue violence or ensure detention. No officer shall strike an arrestee or suspect except in self-defense, to prevent an escape, or to prevent injury to another person.”
7. The UC Davis Police made no effort to remove the student demonstrators from the walkway peacefully before using pepper spray against them.
One video of the pepper-spray incident shows a group of officers moving in to remove the students from the walkway. Just as one of them reaches down to pick up a female student who was leaning against a friend, however, Lt. Pike waves the group back, clearing a space for him to use pepper spray without risk of accidentally spraying his colleagues.
8. Use of pepper spray and other physical force continued after the students’ minimal obstruction of the area around the police ended.
The line of seated students had begun to break up no more than eight seconds after Lt. Pike began spraying. The spraying continued, however, and officers soon began using batons and other physical force against the now-incapacitated group.
9. Even after police began using unprovoked and unlawful violence against the students, they remained peaceful.
Multiple videos show the aftermath of the initial pepper spraying and the physical violence that followed. In none of them do any of the assaulted students or any of the onlookers strike any of the officers who are attacking them and their friends.
10. The students’ commitment to nonviolence extended to their use of language.
At one point on Thursday afternoon, before the police attack on the demonstration, a few activists started a chant of “From Davis to Greece, fuck the police.” They were quickly hushed by fellow demonstrators who urged them to “keep it nonviolent! Keep it peaceful!”
Their chant was replaced by one of “you use weapons, we use our voice.”
Six and a half minutes later, the entire group was pepper sprayed.

life in general & financial markets: (part 4) india's obsession with diesel cars

(previous posts of this series are here --> part 1 dated 28 July 2010,   part 2 dated 14 November 2010 and   part 3 dated 22 February 2011)

The price differential between petrol and diesel has shot up to ugly levels thanks to the free pricing of petrol by oil companies (and the consequent frequent price hikes and particularly the recent weeks' sharp price hikes) and the government-controlled pricing of disel. Diesel is kept heavily subsidised. Petrol is far more expensive than diesel today than it ever was.

Affluent car buyers of India are choosing diesel cars over petrol cars due to the lower price of diesel. This keeps the car sales momentum going. Car manufactuers are surely lobbying (perhaps accompanied by bribing) the government to prevent the rise of diesel price.

Diesel also pollutes the environment much more than petrol. Below is a latest Centre for Science and Enivronment write-up on the subject:



EDITORIAL: Diesel: when bad policy makes for toxic hell
by Sunita Narain

Just consider. Every time petrol prices are raised, oil companies end up losing more money. Simply because the price differential between petrol and diesel increases further, and people gravitate towards diesel vehicles. More the use of diesel, more the oil companies bleed. Worse, we all bleed because diesel vehicles add to toxic pollution in our cities, which, in turn, adds to ill health and treatment costs.

This is very well understood. Yet nobody will do anything to fix the trend.


Today, it makes more sense for the next car buyer to buy an expensive personal car—perhaps even a Mercedes-Benz—but run it on the subsidised diesel. Today, according to government’s own estimates, the use of diesel in personal vehicles has zoomed. Some 15 per cent of the current consumption of diesel is in passenger cars. The agricultural sector uses less—12 per cent of the country’s diesel. This busts the myth that diesel prices are kept low for reasons of
public policy. In fact, keeping the price low but allowing its use in the private transport sector is clearly a deliberate policy to use the poor person’s fuel to subsidise the rich.

Oil companies also say that the under-recovery in diesel is now costing them big time. It is estimated that Rs 67,500 crore is lost annually in under-recovery on account of diesel alone. This is roughly 60 per cent of the total losses of the companies. Assuming that private cars consume 15 per cent of the diesel, the direct subsidy to car owners is over Rs 10,000 crore. This is socialism Indian style: taxing the poor to pay the rich. With each increase in the price of petrol, this gap widens. Bad for oil companies; worse for the environment.

The claim of car companies that the modern diesel vehicle is clean is far from true. Emission data shows current diesel cars emit seven times more particulates and three to five times more nitrogen oxides than petrol cars. There is sufficient evidence that tiny particulates—PM 2.5—emitted from a diesel vehicle are toxic and carcinogenic. This toxin is firmly associated with significant increase in cases of asthma, lung diseases, chronic bronchitis and heart ailments. Long-term exposure can cause lung cancer. The increased level of nitrogen dioxide contributes to the formation of ozone, which, in turn, damages our lungs. So be clear, diesel vehicles, however fancy and fitted, are costing us our health.


Today, Europe, which promoted diesel vehicles, is paying a heavy cost. It is struggling to meet air quality standards, even though it has invested heavily in the cleanest of fuels reducing sulfur levels to near-zero and has fitted vehicles with every kind of anti-pollution gizmo like particulate traps and de-NOx catalyst. Diesel also has higher levels of black carbon, which is today understood to be a key contributor to climate change. In the US, the car mecca, where emission standards and price do not differentiate between fuels, there is no market for diesel cars.


So why does Indian policy continue to provide this perverse incentive to pollute? The irony is that there is no policy that allows this use. It is a loophole. Car manufacturers struck gold when they realised that they could sell more vehicles if they could run them on cheaper and subsidised fuel. They exploit the fact that diesel price is kept lower because of its use for transportation of essential goods and for public transport—trucks use some 37 per cent of the diesel consumed and buses 12 per cent. They also know that dual pricing of fuel—different diesel prices for cars and buses or tractors—cannot be operated. They merrily exploit this helplessness.


Government agencies know this. They make all the right noises about the need to fix the price distortion. The market types glibly talk about the need to deregulate diesel. They say this because they know that even though they sit in power, they cannot remove government control over the price of this fuel, which is also essential for railways, transport of public goods and agriculture. They know that the inflationary impact of raising diesel price will be high; they know it will be opposed. But they use this convenient cover to do nothing about the most glaring of distortions—the use of the subsidised fuel by the rich and for private transport.


But given the rising economic cost and pollution, the option of doing nothing is not acceptable anymore. The options are either to link the price with emission standards or to ban production of personal diesel vehicles. If this is not possible, then the government should tax diesel vehicles—200 to 300 per cent of the price of the vehicle—to remove the fiscal distortion in price and policy. Our neighbour Sri Lanka has done so. In India, committee after committee has recommended that this be done. But it is not done.


Clearly, the lobby for big diesel is powerful. Clearly, it sits in glitzy chambers of commerce, which can bend policy to suit purse and purpose. It’s sad and deadly.

October 31, 2011

life in general: another example of tax-payers' money being spent on wrong things

Many newspapers and other media channels are flooded today with advertisements issued by various ministries in the central government and a few state governments themselves marking the 27th death anniversary of former Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi. 

While reading the general newspaper, The Times of India, today morning I saw several half-page such ads. The ministers heading the ministries which have issued these ads are obviously not paying for the ads from theirs, or their party's (Congress'), pockets. It is coming from the government funds which is mainly tax money received from public, companies and other businesses.

Clearly, this is a obnoxious use of government funds. 

This particular blog focussed on Indian media has even gone into the details, provided some more examples from recent past, and made an estimate of the amount involved in the ads. Here is what that blog is saying:


https://wearethebest.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/indira-64-ads-32-pages-vs-patel-9-ads-3-pages/#comment-21484

Indira: 64 ads, 32 pages vs Patel: 9 ads, 3 pages

31 October 2011 
PRITAM SENGUPTA writes from New Delhi: After the advertising blitzkrieg to mark Rajiv Gandhi‘s birth and death anniversaries, and the death anniversary of his grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru earlier this year, Union ministries and Congress-led State governments and departments have once again splurged heavily to mark Indira Gandhi‘s death anniversary today.
In the 12 newspapers surveyed, there are 64 advertisements of various sizes, amounting to approximately 31½ published pages to mark the assassination of the former prime minister on this day, 27 years ago.
In contrast, Vallabhbhai Patel, the late Union home minister, whose birth anniverary too falls on October 31, gets 9 advertisements in the same 12 newspapers, amounting to 3 published pages. While there are multiple advertisements for Indira Gandhi, no paper has more than one ad for Patel.
The breakup of the Indira Gandhi ads are as under:
Hindustan Times: 22-page main issue; 9 Indira Gandhi ads amounting to 4¼ broadsheet pages
The Times of India: 30-page issue; 13 ads amounting to 6¼ broadsheet pages
Indian Express: 22-page issue; 9 ads amounting to 4 broadsheet pages
Mail Today (compact): 36-page issue; 3 ads amounting to 2¾ compact pages
The Hindu: 24-page issue; 8 ads amounting to 4 broadsheet pages
The Pioneer: 16-page issue; 7 ads amounting to 3¼ broadsheet pages
The Statesman: 16-page issue; 4 ads amounting to 2 broadsheet pages
The Telegraph: 22-page issue; 5 ads amounting to 2½ broadsheet pages
***
The Economic Times: 26-page issue; 3 ads amounting to 1½ pages
Business Standard: 14-page issue; 2 ads amouning to 1 page
Financial Express: 20-page issue; 1 ad amounting to half a page
Mint (Berliner): 24-page issue; 0 ads
This computation is only for 12 English newspapers; many other English papers have been left, as indeed has the entire language media which are more numerous than the English ones, several times over.
Among the 13 advertisers wishing the dear departed leader happy birthday this year are the ministries of information and broadcasting, commer and industry, steel, women and child development, health and family welfare, human resources development, development of north east region, and social justice and empowerment.
The state governments advertising their love are those of Rajasthan, Delhi and Andhra Pradesh. Besides, most newspapers carry an advertisement inserted by the Congress party.
All told, so far, this year, tax payers money have been spent in buying 265 advertisements amounting to 132 published pages in the 12 newspapers.
Last year, on the 19th death anniversary of Rajiv Gandhi, the historian Ramachandra Guha wrote in an edit-page article in The Telegraph, Calcutta:
“A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that on May 21, 2010, perhaps Rs 60 or 70 crore were spent by the taxpayer — without his and her consent — on praising Rajiv Gandhi. Since the practice has been in place since 2005, the aggregate expenditure to date on this account is probably in excess of Rs 300 crore.”

October 24, 2011

life in journalism: shameless availing of diwali gifts


It is the week of the Hindu festival, Diwali. Three years back, on 24 October 2008, I had written a blog post on the obnoxious practise of availing of diwali gifts by journalists in the Indian media. I reproduce the post below. It is still relevant except that the amounts I had mentioned as the worth of the gifts would be much more, 50% to 100% more.

Here is what I had written in that blog post:
 
There is large-scale corruption among journalists and editors in India during Diwali festival (this year's is on right now) when companies and press relations companies send Diwali gifts. These gifts could range from a box of dryfruits/chocolates (that would otherwise cost about Rs 500 in the market) to a physical article costing between Rs 1,000-Rs 10,000.
The way I look at it is that a journalist or an editor should not accept any of these -- not even the box of dryfruits/chocolates costing Rs 500 or more. But I have seen, over the years, senior-level journalists and editors shamelessly accepting these and setting an ugly example for other journalists in their offices. They may not take all these boxes home and instead distribute the contents of some of these boxes internally, even among the peons and office assistants, but I still think this is a pernicious practise that needs to be strongly condemned by all right-thinking individuals.
If the editors and senior journalists do not care about ethics on their own it is high time that readers remind them to start caring. If you are a reader of a newspaper or a magazine, or a viewer of a TV news channel, fetch their email address (Letters to Editor or some other) and email them saying you would not approve if their journalists/editors are availing of Diwali gifts or gifts during any other time either.
As a journalist, myself, I am too sent such boxes. I have given a standing instruction to my office reception to whom the courier deliveries come to refuse to accept any boxes that look like they would be Diwali boxes. But sometimes the corporate communication officials or the PR company officials visit offices directly and leave boxes at the reception. Like, for instance, earlier this year, sometime in March I think, during the Holi festival, 2-3 corporation communication officials of Multi-Commodity Exchange of India had come to my office to distribute Holi sweets. They had got boxes for 3-4 journalists in my office including me. Now, without telling me anything about the box they just left it behind. I was furious. It becomes a time-consuming exercise to trace these guys back and tell them to take back their boxes. Last year (2007) during Diwali, Vaishnavi Communication, the PR company for the Tata Group, had sent me a dryfruit box on behalf of one of the Tata group of companies (I forget the name). It was left at the reception and I was not in office on that particular day. Later, I had to call them and ask them to send their person to take it back.
If all journalists and editors return all the gifts it will send a strong stinging message to the companies and PR companies not to take us for granted.

October 19, 2011

life in general & financial markets: industrialists & politicians get together manipulate good environmental laws



Below is an article written by Centre for Science and Environment's Sunita Narain which talks about an isssue which is yet another revelation of how industrialists, companies and politicians get together to violate good environmental laws




http://downtoearth.org.in/content/bogey-green-clearances

The bogey of green clearances

Sunita Narain
Issue: Oct 31, 2011
imageThe environment is holding up growth and economic development. This is the common refrain in circles that matter. So when the Group of Ministers tasked to resolve the issue of coal mining in forests asked for a report on what needs to be done, it was told that the best would be to dismantle green conditions, almost completely.
The B K Chaturvedi committee recommends that all coal mining projects should be given automatic clearance, with exceptions only for projects in “dense” areas. There is no definition of “dense”, of course, or an understanding of the importance of forests for water and livelihood. Then the committee wants all those provisions that seek to protect the rights of people or the environment to be relaxed. It recommends that the gram sabha, required to give consent to the project, should be held without a quorum. In other words, democracy should be sidelined. Similarly, public hearings should be done away with when it comes to expansion of the current mines. It also recommends that even in areas identified critically polluted new projects should be allowed without check. It has no time to waste on such minor considerations as the health of the people who live in these regions. The horrendous cumulative impacts of these massive projects must be ignored, because we are a nation in a hurry, it says.
This report reflects the general mood. It is for this reason the proposed manufacturing policy, which seeks to create massive areas as national investment manufacturing zones, wants none of these inconvenient green checks. It wants to take away all powers of the environment and forest clearances from the Centre and state agencies and hand them over to the project proponent.
But are green clearances holding up projects? My colleagues spent days poring over the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests’ publicly available database to seek answers. What they found should make us wonder why there is such a hue and cry about the environment as an impediment to growth. In fact, the reverse is true: green clearances are certainly failing to safeguard the environment. This is what should concern us. Make us angry.
First, it should be understood that the scale and pace of green clearances have been unprecedented in the past five years. In fact, the pace doubled, with 203,576 hectares (ha) of forestland diverted for mining and industrial projects in the past five years. Coal mining accounted for more than half the forestland diverted, and as many as 113 coal mining projects were cleared—the highest in a five-year plan since 1981.
Secondly, clearances when added together overshoot the current and future targets. Take power projects. The 11th Five Year Plan targets 50,000 MW of additional thermal power capacity to be created till 2012. In the 12th plan the proposal is to add another 100,000 MW. This is what needs to be built and set up till 2017. Now consider this: in the past five years, till August 2011, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests has granted clearances for an astounding 210,000 MW of thermal power capacity, that is 60,000 MW more than what has been proposed till 2017. Now also consider the fact that the thermal power capacity built in the past five years was a mere 32,394 MW. What is going on? Why are new projects asking for clearances when the old, cleared projects are still not being built? Is this a land-water-coal scam, given that each project sits on valuable natural resources? Or is it all about getting the licence to pollute?
Take the cement industry. At the end of the 10th plan, India’s installed capacity was 179 million tonnes per annum (MTPA). During the 11th plan, green clearances have been given to an additional 190 million tonnes per annum, which takes the combined capacity to 369 MTPA, far beyond what is operational or what is proposed as the target for this period. This is true for virtually all the industrial sectors we analysed.
There is another layer of misinformation. Coal shortage is being cited as the reason for underperformance of the energy sector, which, in turn, is leading to a strident call to open up more forested regions for digging. The fact is Coal India Limited (CIL) produces over 90 per cent of India’s coal; it controls over 200,000 ha of mine lease, including 55,000 ha of forest area. The estimated coal reserves with CIL are 64 billion tonnes, and the company produces 500 million tonnes per annum. Who is then responsible for the shortage of coal in the country?
What is clear, instead, is that in this haste to give clearances, it is the environment that is being short-changed. Most mining districts of the country have become a living hell. More are emerging as the hotbeds of thermal, mining and industrial projects, and nobody wants to fix the horrendous environmental fallout of this growth.
What needs to be done? In my view, environmental regulations should be strengthened, not weakened. Growth managers must look for other reasons they are failing in pushing up industry numbers. More importantly, environmentalists must see how the regulatory regime can be worked better. This is the agenda that matters.

October 16, 2011

life in general: prashant bhushan, anna hazare, kashmir and plebiscite


Today is Sunday. Three Sundays back, on 25 Sep 2011, Prashan Bhushan [an active lawyer, advocate at the Supreme Court of India and an active member of what is referred to as Team Anna (the group of people behind Anna Hazare's anti-corruption campaign)] was speaking at a "Meet the Press" program organised by Kashi Patrakar Sangh at Varanasi. Whether he was speaking on behalf of Team Anna at that press conference I am not sure (this Times of India newsreport dated 25 September is all that I could find on the web and it is not clear on this aspect).

Anyway, someone must have asked him a question on Kashmir to which his response, most likely in his personal capacity and not as a representative of Team Anna, among other articulations included his point about a plebiscite that could be held in Kashmir to ascertain the people of Kashmir's thinking about whether they wanted to stay as a part of India or to become an independent country.

Last week, on Wednesday, 12 October, Bhushan was physically attacked by three persons of an extremist group called Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena, as a protest over his 25 September remarks on Kashmir plebiscite.

The next day, on Thursday, 13 October, a few public supporters of Anna Hazare, were brutally beaten up by other activists of Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena on the road outside a court where the bail application of Bhushan's attacker was being heard.

Yesterday, on Saturday, 15 October, Anna Hazare says he strongly disagreed with Bhushan's views on Kashmir and so he and other core committee members of Team Anna, excluding Bhushan, will decide on whether Bhushan will continue to be considered a part of Team Anna or be excluded. See newsreports here and here.

The above is the background.

Now my views:

I not only agree with Bhushan on a plebiscite in Kashmir but I think there should be an official plebiscite policy whereby once every 50 years there should be a plebiscite in every state of India to determine whether the people of a state wanted to continue to be a part of India or become an independent country (no third option of joining any other country should be given and it should be made illegal to become a part of any other country afterwards in case a choice of independence is made). For the plebiscite to be valid, a minimum voting turnout of 75% has to take place and of the votes given at least 75% has to be for becoming an independent country (if less than 75% of votes given is for independence then that state continues being a part of India). In case, a state chooses to become indpendent, it should be legally bound to hold a reverse plesbicite after 50 years whether its people want to revert back to India or remain independent.

I would prefer seeing every country in the world (including Pakistan) have a similar plebiscite policy with regard to their different states/districts, and if any country does not have such a formal policy the United Nations should exclude them from its membership.

But it is perfectly fine for anyone to think that Kashmir is an integral part of India and that there should be no question of a plebiscite. Bhushan has a view. I have mine. They have theirs. There is no need for violence. Bhushan's views or mine are not seditious because he, and me, are not telling Kashmiris to take up arms to have a plebiscite. We are sharing our thoughts on what we think is fair and we certainly do not want to incite anyone to violence to implement our thoughts. So, there is no question of sedition. I, for one, as a voter registered in Bombay in Maharashtra, will in any plebiscite held in Maharashtra, will vote for it to continue to be in India and not become an independent country.

Coming to Anna Hazare's threat of expelling Bhushan from Team Anna, I find it to be representative of Hazare's support for authoritarianism and his tendencies to be un-democratic. Bhushan would not lose anything in not being a part of Team Anna, but Anna Hazare would lose a honest and hard-working supporter in his campaign against corruption.

October 11, 2011

life in financial markets: (part 2) indian telecom 2g spectrum scam cases have complexities

(part 1 of this series was posted yesterday, on 10 October 2011)

One major telecom-scam-cases-related news yesterday was a 2-judge Supreme Court bench (hearing Subramanian Swamy's application before it asking for investigation of P Chidambaram's role and also hearing Prashant Bhushan's application before it asking for appointment of independent observers to supervise the CBI probe) reserved its order. The 2-judge bench comprises of Justice G. S. Singhvi and Justice A. K. Ganguly.

Just before this news broke out among the media sites yesterday, I had stumbled upon a website called legallyindia.com which had a 4 October-dated report (unsubstantiated though) on a party thrown by Congress Party spokesperson and senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi in Delhi where lawyers and judges were invited. The report mentions, among other things, the attendance of Supreme Court judge Asok Kumar Ganguly in the party. The report stated that this judge was the junior member of the bench hearing the 2G case and that India's Law Minister, Salman Khursheed, was seen interacting with this judge in the party.

As per this Supreme Court website page on individual judges, among other things stated was given the information that Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly is due to retire on February 3, 2012. This date is less than four months away.

Anyway, I am giving below the legallyindia.com report on the party for legal fraternity thrown by Singhvi:



http://www.legallyindia.com/Supreme-Court-Postcards/supreme-court-insider-manu-singhvi-invites-to-party-delhi-bench-bar-politicos-answer


Supreme Court Insider: Manu Singhvi invites to party, Delhi bench, bar, politicos answer

Written by Supreme Court Insider  |  Tuesday, 04 October 2011 17:25

Congress Party spokesperson and senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi hosted a dinner for the upper echelons of the legal fraternity in Delhi on Saturday night. Found wining and dining at the seemingly non-descript but ultra-high profile occasion were judges of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, senior advocates and well-connected lawyers from the Delhi-Bombay Bar.

Significantly Jayant Bhushan, a senior lawyer in his own right, attended the dinner but the absence of his brother, Prashant and father Shanthi Bhushan (the former law minister) did not go unnoticed. Prashant and Shanti Bhushan are integral members of Team Anna of course, which is in stormy negotiations with a Parliamentary committee presiding over the Lokpal Bill headed by Congress’ Singhvi.

Law minister Salman Khursheed’s interaction with Supreme Court judge Asok Kumar Ganguly, who is the junior member of the bench hearing the 2G case, raised some eyebrows too.

2G or not 2G

Khursheed recently issued an opinion from his ministry on the definition of ‘associate’ companies - a move that bolsters the prospects of chargesheeted Reliance, Swan and their executives in the on-going criminal case before a trial court.

Ganguly along with his brother judge GS Singhvi had obliquely referred to the law ministry’s opinion last week during a hearing in the Supreme Court, saying that such interventions from government departments were “not appropriate”.

And so, with this as a backdrop on everybody’s mind, Khursheed and Ganguly sat together at a table and those assembled could only wonder what they spoke about.

Absent friends

All the other usual suspects were present, except of course members of the anti-Singhvi camp that includes the BJP's Arun Jaitley and Congress's Manish Tiwari.

Attorney General Goolam Vahanvati and Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman were absent, although the senior Nariman (Fali) made an early entry and exit. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Harish Salve, Rajiv Nayar, Gopal Subramanium and C. S. Sundaram did not attend.

Collegiate

Discussions on the controversial issue of judicial appointments and the collegium system, which is so strongly defended by the higher judiciary, were heard from various corners of the room.

This is not surprising since AM Singhvi’s parliamentary committee is also presiding over the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, which contains a recommendation to create a National Judicial Commission for the appointment of judges.

Another chapter in the constitutional war between Parliament and the Supreme Court might be in the offing if the government reclaims its right to preside over judicial appointments.