 |
|
Do we need POTA? |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coalitions are here to stay
Profile
On Record
|
Do we need POTA?
A
day after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pitched for a federal crime agency to combat terrorism, the BJP questioned his commitment to fight terror and said a new agency would be of no use unless it is armed with a POTA-type stringent anti-terror law. “Manmohan Singh’s bona fides in the war against terror are suspect,” senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley said, while asking whether a federal agency under him to deal with terror crimes can really be trusted, given his “track record” in the last four years. Hitting the Prime Minister below the belt, he said the repeal of POTA, not giving assent to similar anti-terror laws in the BJP-ruled states, non-execution of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru and “helping the accused being prosecuted under POTA for burning Sabarmati Express” raises a legitimate question whether a federal agency under Dr Manmohan Singh can really be trusted. Earlier, even before the sound of the Jaipur bombs subsided, Jaitley’s party boss L.K. Advani sent an SOS for revival of POTA as if the country would perish without this oppressive law! One wonders why the BJP, that had relentlessly opposed the Emergency and the then prevalent MISA, is so paranoid on enacting POTA! The fact of the matter is that POTA is a draconian, anti-freedom law that in no way enhances the intelligence and
investigative capabilities of the security forces. It is a near unanimous verdict that the Jaipur serial blasts and other similar tragedies across the country have been largely due to intelligence and investigative failures. Enacting POTA, instead of augmenting and streamlining the intelligence machinery, would only lull them further into slumber. This, perhaps, was the reason why the dastardly attacks on Parliament, the J & K Assembly premises and the Akshardham Temple took place when POTA was very much in vogue! POTA as a law gives unfettered powers to the police which today virtually functions as a tool of ruling politicians. It does not even have the magisterial oversight like MISA that could be a minimum deterrent to its misuse. Freedom-loving people are unanimous that a weak and corrupt criminal justice system, if armed with draconian laws, is likely to end up victimising the socially and politically-marginalised people or those who are perceived as a threat to those with power to influence the criminal justice system. The BJP’s contention that the repeal of POTA had left the public “defenseless and increasingly vulnerable to terrorist attacks” is far from true. The feeling of defenselessness is largely because of the nexus between criminal and corrupt elements that indulge in organised crime and the vested interests that benefit from it. This nexus has been clearly
established many times, including the Gujarat holocaust that claimed hundreds of innocent lives. Terrorism is described as the “usage of methods of extreme fear for governing or for coercing government or community”. It is immaterial as to who uses these methods — individuals, organisations or governments. From the way the police and politicians are functioning these days, POTA itself could become a “method of extreme fear”. Actually, it had during the couple of years it was on the statute book. At no point of time before the enactment of POTA in 2002 was a public or political consensus, an essential requirement in any democracy, built around this anti-terrorism law. Did the country really need POTA at that time? Two of the best legal minds in the country — former Chief Justice of India and Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission J.S. Verma and eminent legal luminary F.S. Nariman — had emphatically said No! Verma’s view was that national integrity, which POTA seeks to protect, and individual freedom, which the Act denies are core values in the Constitution and a balance has to be struck. The NHRC’s official stand was: “the existing laws are sufficient to deal with any eventuality, including terrorism, and there is no need for a draconian POTA.” Nariman concurred. “We don’t need POTA. We already have the National Security Act, 1980, which permits the central and state governments to preventively detain persons who are a danger to the security of the state. The governments could tighten some provisions of the NSA or, if necessary, even extend the period of detention in certain cases and under certain safeguards. We should not have another harsh and oppressive law.” Without radically reforming politics and the civil services to provide good governance and overhauling the system of criminal justice involving the police, the prosecution and the judiciary to render speedy and equitable justice, enacting a law that takes away liberties of the people would hit at the very root of our democracy of which India can justifiably be proud. It can actually prove counter-productive and can only end up spawning more corruption and terrorism. So the longer POTA stays out of the statute book the better. Doing otherwise would only proclaim that in the world’s largest democracy, freedom has lost and terrorism has won! Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has rightly observed that the time has come to recognise “such an entity as federal crime” and that a specialised federal agency was needed to investigate all crimes with “multi-state aspects”
such as terrorism and white-collar crime. It is only hoped that Dr. Singh will pursue this good and concrete idea to its fruition instead of succumbing
to the knee-jerk demand for the revival of POTA! The writer is a former Army and IAS officer
|
|
– Union minister Renuka Chowdhary Like the last year, girls have done better than boys. The pass percentage of (Class X) girls is 87.96 per cent compared to 86.46 per cent of boys. Not a single man in our party is a criminal, while 25 per cent of the politicians in Bihar are criminals. – Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal The government proposal to increase the number of Judges has some merit, but clarity is required. Why is there a need to have more judges? If it means that high-profile corporate disputes would get preference, then there is no use of doing it. – E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan, Chairman, We should have hosted the semifinal (against fourth finishers Delhi) instead of playing it at neutral venue (Wankhede Stadium). We have been the best team in the league so far, but have not gained any extra advantage. I have seen in previous matches that the ball does a bit in the first half of the match and in the second half batting is easier. Both teams have good bowlers and shot selection is important.
– Virender Sehwag, Delhi IPL team skipper I respect the court’s judgment but I don’t think it will send out the right message. Politically connected people can make short work of any life sentence, and who knows when the two will be released and on what grounds. – Neelam Katara, mother of Nitish Katara It is not the death penalty which is a deterrent – in which a person is hanged to death in a few seconds. On the contrary, it is life imprisonment which is a
– Additional sessions judge Ravinder Kumar I am under no obligation. We are not a signatory to the NPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty). I have not violated international laws. – Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb |
Coalitions are here to stay THE Indian political scene has now entered a coalition era. Many national political parties think that it is a temporary phenomenon and hope that the old era of a single party forming the government will return. Apparently, they are living in a fool's paradise and indulging in wishful thinking. The coalition era is an inevitablity and our efforts should be to accept this and work this new system in a more mature way. One facet of this new system – the civil service’s role in and in relation with a collation government at the Centre – has become very sensitive. Theoretically, at least this question should not have arisen with the classical bureaucracy. This bureaucracy is supposed to be efficient, corruption-free, transparent and accountable, and more importantly, apolitical. In the Indian context it means that the bureaucracy is loyal to the Constitution. Though under the party in power, it functions in a way which is fair to all irrespective of their political affiliations. The bureaucratic machine which we inherited from the British was allowed to function fairly until Jawaharlal Nehru’s death. There was no undue interference in its working. There were, of course, some exceptional circumstances but they were within small and tolerable limits. It was a long period of stable one-party government. The Prime Minister was a towering personality. Added to this was his liberal philosophy and innate respect for the parliamentary democratic functioning of the government. The bureaucracy, therefore, had no difficulty in functioning properly during his years in power. But then started the unstable period in Indian politics. Even though the Congress formed a one-party government, its position started getting challenged. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi tried to face the challenge but, unfortunately, by using the bureaucratic machine. The bureaucracy, which is supposed to be apolitical, was systematically subjected to become a committed bureaucracy. Such use of the bureaucracy to gain and maintain power did not escape the attention of other political parties and it became a universally accepted practice. The bureaucracy began to face the problem of how to maintain its internal independence and external political impartiality. This aspect of the bureaucracy is very important, especially when there is no political stability in the country. A good example is that of the French bureaucracy, which helped steer the country's economy, administrative machinery and even foreign policy through the turbulent era of French politics in the post-World War II era. Something like this can also be said about the Japanese bureaucracy. In India the first coalition government was formed during 1977-79, another one during 1989-91 and the third in 1996 but it was a very short one. The real coalition era started with the NDA government in 1999 and it continued with the present UPA government from 2004. I would like to repeat here what I said at the beginning of the article that the coalition era is here to stay. As a matter of fact, there is nothing basically wrong in forming a coalition government. A classical coalition government consists of political parties with like-minded philosophy, objectives and policies. Like the practical manifestation of this combination is a common minimum programme. What is happening in India is that coalitions are formed not before but after elections. They are, therefore, purely opportunistic entities formed to gain and maintain power. This explains the difference between the working of a coalition government, say in Germany, and that in India. Added to this is a peculiar feature of Indian politics i.e. that the partners in a coalition include a national party as well as a large number of regional parties. The regional parties are still not used to working on a national basis as they have just started functioning in the national mainstream politics. Hopefully, over a period of time they would develop a national outlook without necessarily giving up their regional compulsions. Another not so desirable aspect of the present coalition politics is that the partner parties not only fight over the number of ministers but also over their portfolios. Against this background of functioning of coalition governments at the Centre, let us see the problems faced by the Indian bureaucracy. As a matter of fact, it was facing a similar problem even when there was a one-party Congress government. The bureaucratic machine was used by political parties as the system of a political party having active field cadres had almost disappeared. The bureaucratic machine continued to be used by most parties for raising resources for the party and putting down the Opposition, especially during the election times. It is a matter of sorrow, if not shame, that the Indian bureaucracy could not stand up to this political challenge, which made it a tool of the system and not a tool of public service. Favouritism, selections, promotions and postings and transfers were indiscriminately used. The bureaucrats also succumbed to these pressure tactics. These unfavorable aspects are only being enlarged and widely spread during the coalition politics. Instead of facing interference from one political party the bureaucracy has now to face interference from many political parties which are partners in a coalition government. In the absence of a major political leadership party, all the partners in the coalition pull in their own ways which not only thoroughly confuses the bureaucratic machine but demoralises it also. I have already mentioned the experience of the French bureaucracy, which stood united and saw the country safely through a period of political turmoil and economic instability. Unfortunately, the Indian bureaucracy is in no position to play such a role, at least for the present. The only hope is that coalition politics will evolve in such a way that the partners will have pre-election agreed policies and objectives, which are in national interest. They would also accept that an apolitical bureaucracy is a major asset and it should not be used only for the sake of getting and maintaining power but allowed to function as an efficient, honest and responsive public service. The bureaucracy also has its own responsible role to play in this process. Senior bureaucrats especially have a vital role to play. They should not only give leadership but also function as role models. There should be an internal code of conduct which may be informal but should be accepted and observed by a large majority of the members. The bureaucrats should stand together to make it difficult for the political machine to play with them. Groupism, sycophancy, any supine submission to political interference and corruption should be noted and a message sent around that the members indulging in this can and will be isolated and boycotted. This approach is necessary, especially in state governments, where coalition politics has played havoc in the past 40 years, the classic examples being Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. An enlightened, empowered and participatory civil society and its various organisations should come forward to help the bureaucracy play its proper role in coalition
politics.
The writer is a former Cabinet Secretary |
|
Profile Apparently, the BJP leader, who is to lead the first-ever BJP government in Karnataka, was guided by astrological advice and sources close to him say that the change in the spelling of his name worked. In his new “avatar”, Yeddyurappa trounced his rivals, particularly the Congress, and won a handsome victory for his party. For the 66-year-old leader from a farmer’s family, it was a sweet victory after his ignominous seven-day tenure as Chief Minister, courtesy the JD(S) which played hide and seek with the power-sharing agreement between the two parties. The Chief Minister has truly been a “son of the soil” and has struggled in public life to become the state’s leader. He began his stint in public life when he was appointed secretary of the RSS’s Shikaripur unit in 1970. In 1972, he was elected president of the Taluk unit of the Jana Sangh. In 1975, he was elected president of the municipality of Shikaripur. He was imprisoned during the Emergency between 1975 and 1977 and was lodged in Bellary and Shimoga jails. In 1980, he was appointed president of the Shikaripur Taluk unit of the BJP and later went on to become the president of the BJP’s Shimoga district unit. In 1988 he became the president of the BJP unit of Karnataka. Yeddyurappa rose to prominence when he helped H.D. Kumaraswamy of the JD (S) to bring down the coalition government of Dharam Singh. Kumaraswamy formed the government with the help of the BJP headed by Yeddyurappa. A deal was struck between the JD(S) and the BJP, which specified that Kumaraswamy would be Chief Minister for the first 20 months, after which Yeddyurappa would become the Chief Minister for the remaining 20 months. Yeddyurappa was nominated the Deputy Chief Minister as well as the Finance Minister. However, in October, 2007, when Yeddyurappa’s turn to become the Chief Minister came, Kumaraswamy refused to resign. This compelled Yeddyurappa and all his ministers to quit and withdraw the BJP’s support to the government . Karnataka was put under President’s rule which was revoked on November 7. During the Centre’s rule the JD(S) and the BJP decided to bury their differences, paving the way for Yeddyurappa to become the Chief Minister. He was sworn in as the 25th Chief Minister of Karnataka on November 12, 2007. However, the JD(S) refused to support the BJP-led government and Yeddyurappa resigned on November 19. This was a great betrayal indeed and helped the BJP to garner sympathy votes in the assembly elections. In the elections, Yeddyurappa contested from Shikaripur against the Samajwadi Party’s S. Bangarappa, a former Chief Minister. The Congress and the JD(S) did not field a candidate in the constituency and backed Bangarappa’s candidature, but despite this Yeddyurappa won the seat by a margin of over 45,000 votes. He now heads the first-ever BJP government in a southern state. The new Chief Minister is known to be an astute politician and an able organiser but lacks administrative experience. His elder brother, Madhevappa, still lives in his native village and does farming. Yeddyurappa’s kin recall that he was active in his studies and sports. He loved to play kabbadi and was good at it. Even though he heads the government now, he has not forgotten his native village, which requires his attention badly. The primary school where he studied is in a dilapidated state and the villagers are hoping that Yeddyurappa will renovate
it. |
|
On Record
Aditya Narain Mishra has no tall claims to fame. But he still is a force to reckon with in the teaching fraternity in India. These days, this unassuming Reader from the Department of Political Science at Aurbindo College, New Delhi, is fighting a mighty battle for the right of a teacher to be honoured for being in the profession. As President of the Federation of Central Universities Teachers’ Association (FEDCUTA), Mishra finds the task daunting, considering teaching continues to be accorded a low priority. But he believes that things will change, and teachers will be able to serve as global knowledge providers. To achieve this objective, Mishra, as head of the conglomerate of representatives from 23 central universities, is engaging deeply with issues that need Government’s attention before the ambitious plan to expand higher education in India rolls. The UGC’s Pay Review Committee is already examining existing pay structures and service conditions of university/college teachers, to recommend improvements.
Mishra, who has twice been president of Delhi Teachers Union Association, however, feels more needs to be done, and fast. Excerpts from an interview: Q. How do you view the current scenario of higher education in India? A. Right now only 7.5 per cent of the eligible age group has access to higher education in India. The figure for some of the developing countries is as high as 20 per cent; in developed nations it is 45 per cent and above. We have come a long way, but not far enough. Q. The UPA has raised the Budget allocation for education. Will that help? A. The UPA’s plan is laudable, especially after the NDA’s policy of privatisation of education. The allocation for education has increased from 7.4 per cent of the total budget in the Tenth Plan to 19.7 per cent in the 11th. This is a welcome shift, but gaps remain. The allocation for higher education is a little over 1 per cent of the GDP - lesser than what Ghana and Mongolia spend on the sector. Q. Teachers’ shortage is cited as a problem even in the way of the government’s plan to implement the 27 per cent OBC quota. What, in your opinion, is the reason? A. The difference between public and private sector salaries at the entry level is worsening the situation. Unless the government pays serious attention to faculty planning, the plan to strengthen higher education will not fructify. In a recent survey of undergraduates in Delhi University, we discovered that teaching was ninth out of 10 professions on students’ wish list. That says it all. Q. The UGC’s pay review committee is on the job. What are your demands? A. Today 55 per cent of India’s foreign reserves come from the knowledge sector. But those who disseminate knowledge remain neglected. There is a need to make teaching a priority profession; for this, parity in work and service conditions with competing professions like the IAS is needed. A. Attractive higher pay at the entry level for lecturers, fast and sound career advancement schemes, including professorship and professor’s grade in colleges are a must. The last pay revision committee had recommended professorship in colleges but the UGC had unceremoniously withdrawn the provision. There’s an old saying: “If you offer peanuts, only monkeys will come.” Higher education is not a monkey business. Q. What innovations can help attract and retain good faculty? A. Innovations can be considered, but first basic facilities must come. For example, people enter the teaching profession late due to the requirement of higher qualifications at the start of the career. The government must offer some incentives for late entry into the profession. Medical facilities for teachers are very inadequate. Q. Research opportunities in higher education also remain limited. How can this area get a fillip? A.
The UGC must seek to convert colleges/universities into centres of excellence.
The present research grants are poor, and even these meager grants do not
percolate to teachers at the college level, particularly in science subjects.
We think an initial research grant of Rs 6 to 8 lakh for three years must be
given to teachers to pursue research. Also, the UGC committee should recommend that every teacher be given tax-free academic allowance equivalent to a month’s basic salary towards the cost of
journals. |
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
I am reacting as a mother. I wish Mayawati would know what it is to feel that way. It is a matter of concern that a young innocent girl (Arushi) is killed inside her house. This is of greater concern than dragging politics into it.
– CBSE Chairman Ashok Ganguly
– Shane Warne, Jaipur team skipper
deterrent wherein the convicts die every moment in jail.
SOON after the BJP decided to nominate B.S. Yediyurappa as the party’s chief ministerial candidate, he changed his name to B.S. Yeddyurappa. 