SIT – Fair or Unfair – By Sayema Sahar (Jan 7, 2012, Twocircles.net)

Any clean chit to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in 2002 riot cases would be a “big worry” for democracy and criminal justice system of the country, former CM Suresh Mehta said on Thursday, in a letter to R K Raghavan, Chairman of the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing some of the post-Godhra riot cases. He also said a clean chit to the BJP stalwart will also be a critical reflection on the agency. Further to Mehta’s letter, Gujarat IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, on 6th January 2012, has also written to the SIT chief alleging that the agency is not conducting a fair investigation.

Mr. Bhatt had earlier on Dec 9, 2011, written a letter to the SIT chief R K Raghavan urging him to record his testimony before a magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC since he feared “distortion” of his earlier recorded statements on the riots. This request and as many as 5 other letters of Bhatt to SIT went unanswered. Not just this, officer Bhatt went ahead alleging certain SIT officials of twisting his statement and leaking it to the media. Is SIT really proceeding with fair investigation? The Honorable Supreme Court while appointing the SIT, had observed, “Communal harmony is the hallmark of democracy… If in the name of religion people are killed, that is a slur and blot on democracy.”

The very inception of SIT at the Supreme Court, therefore was to conduct an independent and fair investigation, for which it was assigned extraordinary powers. SIT was enabled to provide full protection to witnesses and to monitor the trials, ensuring that the conduct of the courts was judicious. SIT, however, has miserably failed to protect the witnesses of the carnage from threats and intimidation. The utterly brazen manner in which the SIT chief ignored the repeated request and plea of one of the key witnesses Sanjiv Bhatt to beef up his security, speaks volumes about the attitude of the agency. A major faction of aware society is of the opinion that SIT has entirely failed in its responsibility to the apex court. It has failed in its duty to oversee a professional and non-partisan investigation in Gujarat. Right from the start there was marked hostility towards those eyewitnesses and survivors whose petition in the apex court had led to the constitution of the SIT in the first place.

The approach of the investigating officers, deputed by SIT, was more like a defense counsel, towards the witnesses while recording their statements and least like an impartial investigating agency. Representatives from the civil society had urged the SIT chief, to record statements of key witnesses, before a judicial magistrate, to reduce the chances of a witness turning hostile. The SIT chief however saw no merit in the suggestion. Witnesses have also complained against the senior officers who are spearheading the entire investigation, that they were never available to hear their complaints. This is not all as far the credibility and fairness of SIT goes. SIT saw no merit in the affidavits of eyewitnesses and survivors, which was admitted in the apex court.

These affidavits and testimonies were completely ignored by the ‘impartial investigating agency’ obviously these affidavits could not find a mention in the charge sheet filed by SIT. Further ahead SIT’s deliberate reluctance to investigate the documentary evidence, including phone call records, mobile van records, control room registers and fire brigade registers only goes on to say that they are NOT BEING FAIR TO THE TRUST OF THE APEX COURT in the team. The Supreme Court of India had ordered the SIT “to take steps as required in Law”. The question whether the team is living up or would live up to the order of the Highest Court of the land, however remains unanswered. The victims of the ‘blood bath’ of 2002 however are losing their trust in this so called impartial investigating agency.

http://twocircles.net/2012jan07/sit_%E2%80%93_fair_or_unfair.html

SEE ALSO:

• Desperate Yeddy Gets Set for a Final Gamble – By Imran Khan (Jan 14, 2012, Tehelka)
  http://tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Ne140112Desperate.asp
• Nanavati – A commission of Omission – By Sayema Sahar (Jan 5, 2012, Twocircles.net)
  http://twocircles.net/2012jan05/nanavati_commission_omission.html
• Terror plot: Probe, don’t politicise it – Editorial (Dec 2, 2011, Asian Age)
  http://www.asianage.com/editorial/terror-plot-probedon-t-politicise-it-679

[Back to Top]

End Of The Marquee – By Anuradha Raman (Jan 16, 2012, Outlook)

Suddenly, there is a lot of New Year cheer in the air. The corporates don’t want to sound gloomy. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has urged Indians to eschew negativity. And with elections in the air, members of Parliament across the board are wary of striking the wrong note. Which is why they have moved on after putting off the agonising decision on the Lokpal bill for another day. In this climate, where do Anna Hazare and his band of generals stand? Will the movement survive the overwhelming mood of hope? The Delhi chill seemed to have found its way into the reception of Anna’s announcement of a three-day fast. Only a few thousands turned out in support at Mumbai’s MMRDA grounds on December 27, while the Ramlila Maidan in Delhi, thronged by lakhs just four months ago, wore an equally desolate look. Uneasiness with the Lokpal bill, evident both within the Congress and its allies, played itself out in a dramatic midnight twist in the Rajya Sabha. The Trinamool Congress had given a hint of its commitment to the bill when the standing committee deliberated the issue. “We have to see whether the provisions of the Lokpal bill are constitutionally feasible,” one of its MPs had said. There was an encore performance at the all-party meeting called by the prime minister on December 14, when almost all political parties advised caution. Of course, all of them, with the sole exception of the Shiv Sena, wanted a strong Lokpal bill.

As the MPs held forth, and as it became evident that a requiem for the Lokpal bill was imminent, the organisers of the movement against corruption called off Anna’s fast after a day. Anna’s health too became a matter of concern and his rallying cry of ‘jail bharo’ too fell silent. Public enthusiasm had ebbed and the bill had been successfully scuttled. Had Team Anna’s movement come undone? The core committee will be meeting in the next few days both to introspect on what went wrong and on the course ahead. “Several factors were responsible for the thin attendance,” says Arvind Kejriwal. The choice of venue, the role of the state government in scuttling the movement are being touted as some of the reasons. Prashant Bhushan is more candid when he says, “Perhaps our preoccupation with the political parties to discuss the legal consequences of the bill led to the neglect of our volunteers. Unlike August, where we had spent considerable time mobilising people, organising referendums in key constituencies, this time around, we were not able to engage with them. We need to go back to ensure that the energy levels of our volunteers are utilised.” “We will be meeting soon,” says Kejriwal, “after Annaji recovers, and decide on our future course of action.”

Some of the proposals likely to come up at the core committee’s meeting are: Should the movement turn overtly political and ask Anna to campaign in the states that will be going to the polls? If so, should the discussion remain focussed on the Lokpal bill or include a basket of issues? There is some confusion here. Says Arvind Kejriwal: “Core committee members have expressed views ranging from staying away from the poll-bound states to keeping the issue of Jan Lokpal alive. We will take a call when Anna recovers.” Alternatively, should the team stay away from the poll-bound states? Should Anna, health permitting, address a rally in each of the poll-bound states? Or, should the task be left to Kejriwal and other members? Should a CD (showing how the UPA government betrayed the corruption cause) be circulated in the states where elections are going to be held? Also to be considered is the proposal of going to the Deoband seminary in an attempt to make the movement more inclusive and to counter the often-hurled charge of being pro-Hindutva. But in doing so, is there the risk of being alienated from the more moderate sections of society?

Each of these proposals comes with its attendant problems. As sources point out, if Team Anna goes to polls, whom will they rail against? “Each of the political parties has played its part in scuttling the bill,” says a team member. “To attack only the Congress would mean Team Anna doesn’t have issues with the BJP, SP, BSP and RJD, not to mention the TMC.” Besides, those spearheading the anti-corruption campaign are only too aware that campaigning against the Congress in states like Uttarakhand (the BJP government there has cleared a Jan Lokpal-like bill) and Punjab (where the government is supportive of it) may be pointless since the governments in power are battling anti-incumbency. Then again, in the keenly-watched Uttar Pradesh elections, campaigning against the Congress could be perilous since Team Anna will then be charged with siding with the BJP.

Says core committee member Prashant Bhushan, “We do not want to enter into a campaign, but we are being forced to do so in the light of what the Congress and the others did. Willy nilly, you have to hurt them electorally. We have to hurt them where it hurts the most, but is this (Lokpal) the only issue we should talk about? That needs to be debated by the core committee.” Anna’s absence is also telling on the committee, as it finds itself unable to move a step forward without his nod. So, is there reason for some cheer for those who spearheaded the campaign against corruption? The manner in which political parties came together to scuttle the bill in the Rajya Sabha was clearly a letdown. Even the position taken by some TV channels and newspapers is a matter of concern. Cynicism will stay and the actions of political parties and the government is likely to reinforce this in 2012.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279450

SEE ALSO:

• Their Winter of Discontent – By Revati Laul (Jan 14, 2012, Tehelka)
  http://tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Ne140112WINTER.asp
• The Circus is in Town – Editorial (Jan 7, 2012, Economic & Political Weekly)
  http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/16956.pdf
• The saga of the Lokpal Bill – Editorial (Jan 2, 2012, The Hindu)
  http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2766561.ece
• ‘An independent CBI director can still be held answerable and accountable’ – Justice Rajindar Sachar tells Ashish Khetan (Jan 14, 2012, Tehelka)
  http://tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Ne140112Rajindar.asp

[Back to Top]

The corrupt rule the roost – By Arun Kumar (Jan 7, 2012, The Hindu)

The Lokpal Bill failed to become law in 2011. The Lok Sabha passed it after some acrimony, but the Rajya Sabha did not even vote on it. Three views emerged during the debate inside and outside Parliament. First, it is a weak Bill not worth passing in its present form. Secondly, it is better to have some sort of Lokpal even if it is not what it ought to be. Lastly, the Bill would create a monstrous institution that will undermine Indian democracy, especially as it would affect the functioning of legislators and the Prime Minister. Many parliamentarians (publicly and/or privately) understandably supported the third view, given that either they themselves or some of their party colleagues face charges of corruption. They argue that Indian democracy is one of the best in the world: so why disturb it by creating a new institution that would have powers over the people’s representatives. While this argument has some merit, perhaps their real worry relates to the possible truncation of their capacity to wheel and deal. Do they not see that the public is angry with the politicians because it believes they undermine democracy? A Chief Minister resigns over corruption charges, but installs his wife as Chief Minister. Many who are accused of corruption have become Chief Ministers or Ministers. Politicians often make public statements, only to deny them later, showing utter disregard for public opinion. The public has reacted by increasingly becoming contemptuous of them.

The middle position prevailed in the Lok Sabha but not in the Rajya Sabha. The argument is that it is better to have some kind of Lokpal than none. A middle path is favoured over extreme positions. However, can the position midway between two incorrect positions be automatically considered correct, or even that which is midway between an incorrect and a correct position be a correct one? It was argued, for instance, that even if the Central Bureau of Investigation remains under government control it may be granted more autonomy. The moot question is whether such a CBI can be effective. Some people suggest that the absence of constitutional status would weaken the Lokpal. It is true that constitutional status rather than statutory status is better. But how would that by itself make the Lokpal effective? It is argued that a government that is unhappy with a Lokpal can remove the body, as happened in the case of the Punjab and Haryana Lokayukta, or have the Bill modified through a simple majority in Parliament. However, in today’s environment this would be difficult since anti-corruption movements are stronger than earlier. The moot question is: how would constitutional status help curb corruption if the Lokpal itself is weak because of the inadequate provisions in the Bill? India has several constitutional authorities, such as the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Central Vigilance Commissioner, to check malpractices. Yet, illegality has only grown.

Is it the case that because the Election Commission is a constitutional body it is successful? Elections to five States have been announced. In this season to fight corruption, the Commission has announced steps to reduce the role of black money in elections. Income tax officers will be posted to monitor expenditure, bank accounts will have to be opened by candidates to route funds, and so on. These seem timely since much black money is used in elections, resulting in the forging of ties between politicians and the corrupt. Most candidates spend way above the election expenditure limit since they buy votes, hire workers, travel, organise meetings, and so on. The politicians accepting funds know that a quid pro quo is involved. There are also the wealthy fighting elections using their own unaccounted funds. They pay off the party leadership to get nominations. They may not be obliged to others but their motive is not selfless service, rather the furthering of their business interests. Election Commissions have tried to curb the role of black money in elections, but the politicians have proved cleverer and circumvented it all. T.N. Seshan as Chief Election Commissioner cracked the whip, but many politicians have said in private that he only succeeded in driving spending underground. There are reports of large cash movements during election-time. It is good that this would be monitored, but will that be effective? One election organiser of a candidate in the last parliamentary elections admitted that money came in sacks. Apparently, counting machines were installed in safe houses where cash was counted and distributed.

In the last two decades, no Election Commissioner has been accused of being corrupt, though there have been accusations of bias. Yet, the Commission has not been successful in checking malpractices that result in the compromised getting elected – who then claim legitimacy and propagate corruption with impunity. Instances of booth-capturing have declined, but new forms of grabbing votes have emerged. There are election expenditure limits but these are hardly kept. Parties and candidates are supposed to get their accounts audited, but how can unrecorded transactions be audited? The failure of a constitutional body like the Election Commission to check the growing scale of corrupt practices has important lessons for the reform of the existing watchdog institutions and the Lokpal. India has a multitude of watchdog institutions, constitutional and statutory. What is their experience? The CAG audits government departments to track malpractices, but those in power have found ways to get around it. Intelligence agencies (the Intelligence Bureau, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and so on) keep tabs on important people and their wheeling and dealing and hold vast amounts of information, but illegality has only grown. There are the CVC, the CBI and various police agencies. Government departments have their vigilance wings. There are agencies to protect the environment, but the powerful violate environmental laws with impunity. There are regulatory authorities (such as the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) to check private business activity, but they could not prevent the 2G scam or insider trading in the stock markets. The Reserve Bank of India regulates financial institutions, but it has been found wanting, as in the Harshad Mehta scam, the failure of cooperative banks, and so on.

The Information Commission oversees the Right to Information. It has shown some success, but increasingly the whistle-blowers are being eliminated and its success has remained limited to the highly literate. The media have exposed innumerable cases of corruption, but now sections of them are entangled in the vice of paid news. Some media stars have been found to be hobnobbing with the powerful and the compromised. The judiciary is an independent constitutional body, yet the number of cases of alleged corruption against judges is increasing. Cases are piling up in courts, and the number of pending cases has crossed four crore. This has resulted in miscarriage of justice in many instances. … Democracy has become formalistic. Legislatures should check corruption but it would not be so if the elected are beholden to the corrupt or are themselves corrupt. The problem is political; it cannot be resolved through technical fixes or by having more laws – these are anyway being circumvented. A weak democracy presents a no-win situation: if a democracy is weak, the corrupt get elected and misuse their autonomy; if the legislators’ autonomy is curbed, democracy weakens. Only a conscious public, not rules and laws, can deliver autonomous and incorruptible legislators.That is why today there is a need for political movements that can change the national consciousness, a task being addressed by the movement against corruption and for Lokpal. So, the question is, can there be strong watchdogs in a weak democracy?

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/article2782015.ece

SEE ALSO:

• Corruption and Fairy Tale Elections – Editorial (Jan 7, 2012, Economic & Political Weekly)
  http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/16957.pdf
• Political Panchadoshas – By Neelabh Mishra (Jan 16, 2012, Outlook)
  http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279451
• Lokpal Bill: Lessons from the Karnataka Lokayukta’s Performance – By Narayana A, Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Vikas Kumar (Jan 7, 2012, Economic & Political Weekly)
  http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/16961.pdf

[Back to Top]

Strange Notion of Communal Harmony: Madhya Pradesh’s law banning cow slaughter is discriminatory and arbitrary – Editorial (Jan 14, 2012, Economic &Political Weekly)

The Madhya Pradesh (MP) government has put forward a strange reason for amending the Gau-Vansh Vadh Pratishedh (Sanshodhan) Act or cow slaughter law to introduce far more stringent provisions than the earlier Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act 2004. It believes that this is in the interest of communal harmony in the state. The amended Act provides for harsh punishment and grants the police extremely arbitrary powers. It essentially criminalises the eating habits of millions of citizens, especially Muslims, Christians, dalits, and a large number of Hindus too. The punishment now for cow (and calf) slaughter will carry a minimum of one year and maximum seven years’ imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5,000. Even storing or transporting beef will now be punishable with a minimum term of six months, which can be extended up to three years. The most contentious provision in the law is that a “competent authority” has been empowered to “enter and inspect any premises” where he has “reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been, is being, or is likely to be committed”, and take necessary action. More importantly, the onus is on the accused to prove his or her innocence. Given the way the police and the legal system function, such a provision is more than likely to be abused as it allows scope for wide interpretation. Add to this the fact that the present MP government has a history of targeting the state’ s religious minorities, one can see that far from helping communal harmony, the law is likely to inflame passions.

But it is not just from the point of view of minority rights that this Act seems discriminatory. Those protesting against Karnataka’s Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2010 (which also has stringent provisions) have pointed out how it is anti-farmer and anti-poor. Farmers, including those who do not eat beef themselves, usually sell old cows to the butcher in order to buy new cattle stock. This not only provides meat to many families who find beef an affordable source of protein but also services the indigenous leather industry that supports a large workforce. In fact, dalit organisations in Karnataka (where there is also a BJP government) have been in the forefront of the protest against this bill becoming law. They have consistently pointed out that in the face of rising food prices, banning cow slaughter and thus beef would be akin to violating the fundamental rights of the dalits. The Karnataka Bill also goes further than the earlier law by prohibiting the slaughter of she-buffaloes, their calves, bulls and male and female buffaloes. On the other hand, the existing Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 stipulates conditions for killing calves (including those of female buffaloes) and cows. Only buffaloes, bulls and bullocks that are 12 years old or more, or not fit for breeding or milking, are permitted to be slaughtered under the 1964 law.

In the long and ever simmering debate on cow slaughter and beef eating, the lines have always been drawn between the religious minorities, dalits and lower caste Hindus on one side and the (mostly, though not always) upper caste Hindus on the other. History has been repeatedly roped in to prove either side’s contention. Historians like R S Sharma and D N Jha have thrown the weight of their research in support of those who say that beef eating was routine in the Vedic period. It was the later and growing nod to caste consciousness that termed meat eating, particularly beef eating, as unclean.

States like Gujarat, Karnataka, Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh already have laws against cow slaughter, while Orissa and Andhra Pradesh permit the killing of cattle other than cows if the animals are not fit for any other purpose. There are minimal restrictions in other states and none in West Bengal and Kerala. While the right wing and Hindutva parties make no bones about their assertion that a total ban on cow slaughter is their aim, the Congress too has time and again played the cow protection card especially in the north. Yet in Karnataka, the non-BJP opposition has come out strongly against the new bill on cow slaughter even though this is an issue that most political parties prefer to shy away from. Above all, what the changes in the law in BJP-ruled states like MP and Karnataka bring out is the BJP governments’ lack of concern for anyone who does not endorse the party’s set of beliefs. By criminalising people’s choice in something as personal as what they choose to eat, these governments are demonstrating their total lack of respect for diversity and their cavalier disregard of rights guaranteed to everyone, including the minorities, in a democratic system such as the one that prevails in India.

http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/16992.pdf

SEE ALSO:

• Using the cow – By Javed Anand (Jan 5, 2012, Indian Express)
  http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/895763/
• In the Name of Cow – the Holy Fraud – By A.J. Philip (Jan 9, 2012, Indian Currents)
  http://indiancurrents.org/admin/upload/6503pages%2014,15,16,17.pdf

[Back to Top]

Aadhaar: time to disown the idea – By R. Ramakumar (Dec 16, 2011, The Hindu)

“…The Committee categorically convey their unacceptability of the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010…The Committee would, thus, urge the Government to reconsider and review the UID scheme.…” This was the conclusion of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance (SCoF), which examined the Bill to convert the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) into a statutory authority. With this categorical rebuff, the SCoF dealt a body blow to the Aadhaar project, which is being implemented from September 2010 without Parliament’s approval. Technically speaking, the SCoF report asked the government to bring forth fresh legislation before Parliament. However, a careful examination of the report shows that it does not just reject the Bill, it also raises serious questions about the idea of Aadhaar itself. In fact, the report so comprehensively questions the idea that any effort to introduce fresh legislation would require, as a prerequisite, a re-look at the foundational principles on which the project was conceived. There are broadly five important arguments in the SCoF report. First, it contains scathing criticism of the government for beginning Aadhaar enrolment without Parliament’s approval for the Bill. Currently, UIDAI enjoys only executive authority, and no statutory authority. The justification that the government presented before the SCoF was as follows: the powers of the executive are co-extensive with the legislative powers of the government, and this allows the government to exercise executive powers in spheres not regulated by legislation. The government also cited the Attorney-General’s advice, which noted that “executive power operates independently” of Parliament and that “there is nothing in law that prevents the [UIDAI] from functioning under the Executive Authorisation.” The SoF rejects this position, and states that the government’s legal justification “does not satisfy the Committee.” The legal position upheld by the SCoF is that co-extensiveness of powers does not permit the executive to do what it pleases; when constitutional rights and protections are potentially violated, the powers of the executive remain circumscribed by those of the legislature.

Secondly, the SCoF raises serious questions about the enrolment process followed for Aadhaar numbers. The issue of Aadhaar numbers “is riddled with serious lacunae,” and this problem can be traced to conceptualisation “with no clarity of purpose” and implementation in “a directionless way with a lot of confusion.” For instance, the Ministry of Finance felt that there was “lack of coordination” across the six agencies collecting personal information, leading to “duplication of efforts and expenditure.” The Ministry of Home raised “serious security concerns” over the introducer model used to enrol persons without any proof of residence. The report concludes that the enrolment process “compromises the security and confidentiality of information of Aadhaar number holders,” and has “far reaching consequences for national security.” The reason: “the possibility of possession of Aadhaar numbers by illegal residents through false affidavits/introducer system.” Thirdly, the SCoF comes down heavily on the government for proceeding with the project without “enactment of a national data protection law,” which is a “pre-requisite for any law that deals with large-scale collection of information from individuals and its linkages across separate databases.”

In its submission to the SCoF, the government had taken a dismissive view of the right to privacy of individuals. It noted that “collection of information without a privacy law in place does not violate the right to privacy of the individual.” The SCoF rejects this view, and notes that in the absence of legislation for data protection, “it would be difficult to deal with the issues like access and misuse of personal information, surveillance, profiling, linking and matching of databases and securing confidentiality of information.” Fourthly, the report strongly disapproves of “the hasty manner” in which the project was cleared. It concludes that a “comprehensive feasibility study…ought to have been done before approving such an expensive scheme.” This conclusion follows the government’s admission to the SCoF that “no committee has been constituted to study the financial implications of the UID scheme,” and that “comparative costs of the Aadhaar number and various existing ID documents are also not available.” The total cost of the Aadhaar project would run into multiples of ten thousand crore of rupees. For just Phase 1 and 2, where 10 crore residents were to be enrolled, the allocation was Rs. 3,170 crore. For Phase 3, where another 10 crore residents are to be enrolled, the allocation is Rs. 8,861 crore. In a rough extrapolation, for 120 crore residents the total cost would then be over Rs. 72,000 crore. Is the Comptroller and Auditor General listening?

Fifthly, the report tears apart the faith placed on biometrics to prove the unique identity of individuals. It notes that “the scheme is full of uncertainty in technology” and is built upon “untested, unreliable technology.” It criticises the UIDAI for disregarding (a) the warnings of its Biometrics Standards Committee about high error rates in fingerprint collection; (b) the inability of Proof of Concept studies to promise low error rates when 1.2 billion persons are enrolled; and (c) the reservations within the government on “the necessity of collection of IRIS image.” The report concludes that, given the limitations of biometrics, “it is unlikely that the proposed objectives of the UID scheme could be achieved.” The SCoF report cites the experience from the United Kingdom, where a similar ID scheme was shelved. It dismisses the government’s contention that “comparison between developed countries…versus India…is not a reasonable one.” It states that “there are lessons from the global experience to be learnt,” which the government has “ignored completely.” It cites issues of cost overruns, fallacies of technology and risks to the safety of citizens, and notes: “as these findings are very much relevant and applicable to the UID scheme, they should have been seriously considered.” The SCoF report has invited sharp reactions from the business press and pro-business lobbies. One report argued that, after the Foreign Direct Investment-in-retail fiasco, it is “another Indian reform massacre;” for another, it is a “setback to the government’s attempts to revive faltering economic reforms;” and for yet another, the title was “UPA reforms agenda hit again.”

These predictable reactions only reaffirm the widely held belief that Aadhaar is an integral component of the neo-liberal reform programme of UPA-2. In fact, the SCoF deserves praise for standing up to pressure from powerful quarters, and not allowing the moment to be hijacked by vested interests. Ironically, till last week, the same SCoF had come in for profuse praise from none other than Nandan Nilekani himself. He had said in August 2011: “I have had the occasion to…make a presentation on more than one occasion to the Standing Committee…let me tell you they do an extraordinarily thorough job. I am very, very impressed with the quality of questions, the homework, the due diligence, the seriousness that they view these things with. And it is very bipartisan, you can’t make out who is from which party because they all ask on the issue. So when you have such an excellent system of law-making…Let us respect that, let us give them the opportunity to call all the experts for and against and let them come out with something. They are the appropriate people, they are our representatives.” The “representatives” have now spoken. For the government, the most dignified way ahead is to pay heed to the SCoF’s views and suspend the Aadhaar project immediately. Each conclusion in the report should be discussed threadbare in the public domain. Biometrics should be withdrawn from government projects as a proof of identity. Alternative, and cheaper, measures to provide people with valid identity proofs should be explored. However, it would be a travesty of democratic principles if the government disregards the SCoF report and pushes the project in through the backdoor.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2717949.ece

SEE ALSO:

• More Sops, No Agenda – By S. P. Talukdar (Jan 9, 2012, Indian Currents)
  http://indiancurrents.org/admin/upload/9527pages%2026,27,28.pdf
• Chasing the vote in Uttar Pradesh – Editorial (Jan 2, 2012, The Hindu)
  http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/article2766572.ece

[Back to Top]

Quota alone cannot rid Muslims of their woes – By Aditya Menon (Jan 4, 2012, India Today)

The Mandalisation of Uttar Pradesh politics appears to have come full circle, with the Congress attempting to use quotas to undercut the original beneficiaries of reservation based politics. The introduction of sub-quotas within the 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), particularly the inclusion of backward sections among religious minorities, appears to be the grand old party’s trump card in the forthcoming assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh. On Sunday, Sriprakash Jaiswal, Union Coal minister and three time MP from Kanpur, provided further evidence of the Congress’s attempts at beating OBC chieftains Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad Yadav at their own game. He said that the 4.5 per cent subquota that the Union Cabinet had cleared last month might be increased in accordance with the figures of the caste census, an exercise that the government reluctantly undertook in 2011 after being pressured by the two Yadav leaders. Jaiswal’s statement follows closely on the heels of the Congress rally in Saharanpur during which the two General Secretaries who are spearheading the party’s campaign in UP – Rahul Gandhi and Digvijaya Singh – promised the minorities six to eight per cent reservation in government jobs.

These could well be attempts at damage control as many Muslims considered the 4.5 per cent quota as too little, too late. The main problem here would appear to be the lack of sincerity on the part of the Congress. The party was being too clever by half by extending the paltry quota to all the religious minorities – clearly an attempt at wooing the backward sections among the Sikhs in poll-bound Punjab, in addition to Uttar Pradesh’s Muslims. This was completely unnecessary, as the lack of adequate representation in government jobs and educational institutions is a problem specific to the Muslim community and not other religious minorities like Sikhs, Christians, Jains or Parsis. The government should have ideally addressed the needs of the Muslim community through the Equal Opportunities Commission that the Sachar committee report had recommended. The report, which has become a key aspect of the political discourse in the Muslim community across the country, had recommended the setting up of such a body that would look into complaints of bias or the denial of equal opportunities to any deprived community, on the lines of the UK Race Relations Act, 1976. The consistent thrust of the committee was to suggest policies that provide redress to the Muslim community, within the framework of fighting backwardness in general. This effort at ‘mainstreaming’, however, is at odds with the dictates of vote bank politics, which naturally lead to quotas. Even if one were to accept that the government is sincere in helping Muslims, and that it would somehow prevent the 4.5 per cent seats being gobbled up by people from other religious minorities, the move will address the community’s backwardness only partially. The impact of reservation in government jobs and public-funded institutes of higher education would be limited for the simple reason that the bottleneck lies much lower.

Only 17 per cent of Muslims above the age of 17 have completed their matriculation, indicating an alarmingly high school dropout rate in the community. One in every four Muslims between six and 14 years of age has either never attended school or has dropped out – the highest percentage among all the socioreligious communities (SRCs) in the country. The Sachar report clearly states that school education is the main hurdle for Muslims. The report adds that once that is crossed, a Muslim is almost as likely as any other to complete his or her graduation. There are several other aspects to Muslim deprivation that a quota cannot address. For instance, the access to credit is substantially less when compared to other SRCs. The share of Muslims in the total outstanding amount in banks is a paltry 4.7 per cent, indicating a lesser share in the loans sanctioned. Compare this with the exceptionally high 6.5 per cent for other minorities, who are less than half of the Muslims’ share of population. If this doesn’t provide enough reason for the government to separate the Muslims from other religious minorities then it must examine the success of some of the other minority-based schemes. The Sachar report reveals that it is the non- Muslim minorities that have benefited out of the Reserve Bank of India’s efforts to extend banking and credit facilities for religious minorities in accordance with the Prime Minister’s 15 point programme, while the Muslims have been marginalised.

In Uttar Pradesh for instance, the average priority sector advances per account is about Rs.30,000 for Muslims, a little over half of the figure for other minorities. These are matters that cannot be resolved by quotas, but a body that addresses lack of opportunities for Muslims and possibly even cases of bias against them – something precisely like an equal opportunities commission. While it is important to understand that reservations are not a panacea for all the woes of a community, the reality of Indian politics is that they have been the preferred method of addressing social and economic inequalities. Therefore, the introduction of sub-quotas is justified and in fact desirable. This is particularly relevant in UP where the lion’s share of the OBC quota is grabbed by caste groups like Yadavs, Kurmis and Lodhs who are forward among the backwards. Some of the indicators of even general category Muslims are lower than that of Hindu OBCs, so there is absolutely no reason why the backward among Muslims should remain deprived of a sub-quota.

The Congress must take this process a step further by honouring its promise of a subquota for Most Backward Castes within the OBC quota, in line with the formula of former Bihar chief minister Karpoori Thakur. Like the Muslims, the MBCs are a large socio-political group in Uttar Pradesh that is yet to express open support for any one political party. The recent expulsion of MBC leader Babu Singh Kushwaha from the Bahujan Samaj Party is an indicator of the erosion of the ruling party’s MBC base. The effective use of this formula by Bihar’s present incumbent Nitish Kumar is a model worth emulating for the Congress which is seeking to turn around its fortunes in the state. Nitish has even created a Mahadalit category to isolate the relatively elite Passi Dalits from the rest. This could easily be used against the Jatavs in UP, who are the caste of chief minister Mayawati and have gained most out of the reservation for Scheduled Castes. The Karpoori formula might be an even better option as it also accounted for the poor among Upper Castes. If Mandalisation is a reality, then quotas ought to be structured in such a way that they benefit those who truly need them.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/sub-quotas-system-uttar-pradesh-polls-congress-party/1/167096.html

SEE ALSO:

• For Muslims, UPA-2 is just the opposite of UPA-1 – By Shakeel Ahmad (Jan 6, 2012, Twocircles.net)
  http://twocircles.net/2012jan06/muslims_upa2_just_opposite_upa1.html

[Back to Top]