|
|
|
|
|
Nailing the CWG culprits
Recession fears in US |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Education providers
US after the debt deal
Empty vessels
POINT
CounterPOINT
|
Nailing the CWG culprits The report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India on the 2010 Commonwealth Games which was tabled in Parliament on Saturday has no surprises because the controversial sections of it had been leaked to a section of the media many days ago. Ironically, much of the 743-page report is a shocking saga of favouritism in awarding expensive contracts related to the Games, cost escalations due to extensive delays besides irregularities in the entire gamut of projects, and wasteful expenditure on a massive scale. Yet, one must concede that despite major hiccups, ultimately the Games went well and became a showcase event like the Olympics in China. It is now incumbent on us to see that we learn from the organizational goof-ups and streamline our systems. Besides the delays and cost-over-runs, we need to critically examine whether the multiplicity of authorities in the national capital is a hindrance to the smooth conduct of such mega events. The CAG report’s observation that hundreds of crores of rupees were wasted because of lax supervision and a deliberately-created siege-like situation in the run-up to the Games is a clear indictment of the Organizing Committee of the Games headed by Congress MP Suresh Kalmadi, the Delhi government and other State and Union agencies. One cannot but agree with the CAG’s surmise that there was more to the delays than just inefficiency. The time window from November 2003 to its hosting in October 2010 which could have been used effectively for planning, clearances and approvals was wasted which led to a consciously-created sense of urgency which came in handy for shortcuts in tendering, to the benefit of a few vested interests. Significantly, the CAG has spared no one in seeking to get to the root of the muddle. While Kalmadi and his coterie have been indicted strongly, Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit has also come in for adverse comments for wasteful expenditure and delays in executing projects. Even the Prime Minister’s office has not been spared for appointing Kalmadi despite a cautionary note from then Sports Minister Sunil Dutt. As an audit body, the CAG has indeed done its job. It is now for the Public Accounts Committee to take a call and for the Manmohan Singh government to fix specific culpability and to punish those who lined their pockets while subverting the system. At the same time, right systems need to be put in place. |
|
Recession fears in US The financial crisis in the United States and Europe has revived fears of a global recession. The decision to downgrade the credit rating of the United States, for the very first time in its history, by rating agency Standard & Poor’s is bound to compound the crisis. The expression of no confidence in the US government’s ability to repay public debts will not only make borrowing costlier for the US government, it will also hinder its ability to significantly raise levels of public expenditure, necessary to pull the economy out of recession. The public debt of the US government has risen sharply from $ 6.4 trillion in 2003 to $ 14.2 trillion in 2011.
Part of it can be attributed to the wars waged by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and partly to the failure to revive investor confidence since the 2008 meltdown. Add to it the Eurozone crisis and the very real possibility of the collapse of the Euro and prospects of growth would appear even more bleak. The financial markets last week bore the brunt of this dismal sentiment and remain poised at the brink as markets reopen on Monday. The Union Finance Minister, Mr Pranab Mukherjee, and the Securities and Exchange Board of India ( SEBI) chairman, Mr U.K. Sinha, have predictably played down the possible impact on India. “ It is substantially due to external factors and stock markets fell due to global factors,” said Mr Mukherjee while the SEBI chairman was quoted as saying, “ …our belief is that everything is perfect and right in our market”. Given India’s relatively conservative policies and a better record of coping with the meltdown of 2008, their optimism may not be entirely misplaced. But there are disturbing signs of a slowdown in the country and it would be foolhardy to be complacent. The services sector, specially Information Technology-enabled services, is already jittery over developments in the US and doubts have been raised over export figures. With forecasts of a more stormy financial weather ahead, India can ill-afford the policy paralysis that has been evident during the past several months. While all eyes will also be on China, which has a stake in keeping the US dollar strong and stable because of its forex reserves of greenback, Indian regulators will have to work overtime to ensure that the cold does not become contagious.
|
|
|
Education providers Ever since the Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operation) Bill has been proposed, doubts have been raised about what it would and should entail. Indeed, checks and balances are imperative for ensuring a level playing field for education providers in the country vis-a- vis its foreign counterparts.
However, the recent observation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on HRD that foreign education providers must bring 50 per cent faculty with them is rather ludicrous. The fear that foreign universities might poach on our teaching faculty not only reeks of an inbuilt phobia that makes us suspect all things foreign, but also underestimates India’s large pool of talent. Without doubt, one of the ills that afflicts higher education in India is the paucity of qualified teachers. Even premier institutions like the IITs and the IIMs are plagued by the shortage of meritorious men and women in teaching positions. But to assume that the presence of foreign education providers in the country could further aggravate the situation is to ignore the real issues. The ground reality is that even today India loses its talent to foreign shores for want of high-paid job avenues. Thus, the focus should be on providing greater and better opportunities to arrest brain drain. Who knows setting up of foreign campuses in India might stop the bright and best teaching brains in India from checking out greener pastures abroad. Expanding the ambit of higher education in India through foreign education providers is more than welcome. The inadequacy of institutions of higher education can be met through foreign universities. However, utmost caution must be exercised to ensure that universities from abroad infuse the much-needed quality in our otherwise mediocre education system. Instead of fretting over fears of poaching of the teaching talent, India’s foreign education dream should be driven by the motto of excellence, especially if India has to emerge a winner in the knowledge race. The option of establishing foreign universities by invitation as well as in areas where they are needed the most is worthy of consideration. India owes qualitative as well as quantitative education facilities to its youth, sadly only a minuscule percentage of who enter higher education. However, they should be prevented from falling into the trap of teaching shops, foreign or otherwise. |
|
|
A good job is more than just a paycheque. A good job fosters independence and discipline, and contributes to the health of the community. — James H. Douglas
|
US after the debt deal Finally, a deal has been done. The US political system is not as broke as some thought. But the deal has come a bit too late to allay apprehensions about the ability of the American political establishment to think seriously about the multiple economic crises facing the world’s most powerful economy.
After approval earlier last week the US Senate sent the measure to President Obama and immediately granted the Treasury $400 billion in additional borrowing authority, just hours before a midnight deadline last Tuesday. Yet no one seems to be happy with the deal that has been struck. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) won over more than two-thirds of his caucus by assuring the lawmakers that few GOP priorities were in the line of fire and that Obama had retreated on his demand for higher taxes. Angry Democrats largely shared that assessment. But after withholding their votes for most of the roll call, they split evenly for and against the proposal, which would cut at least $2.1 trillion from projected borrowing over the next decade without any immediate provision for new taxes. A gruelling battle that had consumed Congress for most of the spring has come to an end but a bigger war lies ahead. The attention as well as pressure will shift to the new super-committee whose mandate is figuring out how to save $1.2?trillion to $1.5?trillion more. The first round of cuts, spread among domestic and military programmes, will total $917?billion over the next 10 years, including savings from lower interest payments, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The second round will be the harder bit. The debt-limit deal, which strained and nearly snapped American politics, was the easy part. The compromise involved no reforms of Medicare or social security, and it had no tax increases. Once again, the President and Congress targeted discretionary spending — about a third of the federal budget. Given the severity of previous discretionary spending cuts, this strategy will not work the next time around. The bargain addresses a liquidity problem; it does not resolve the debt crisis. Yet this exertion has left Democrats and Republicans exhausted and bruised. An honest debate on controlling medicare costs — a prerequisite for meaningful debt reduction — is uncomfortable for both parties. Democrats support price controls in an ever-more-repressive system that tends towards rationing. Republicans want to limit costs by increasing out-of-pocket costs for the middle class. Neither side has a political interest in preparing Americans for unavoidable pain. As the 2012 Presidential elections draw nearer, the contrast between the two parties seems certain to be drawn in sharp relief. The Republican vision is of a dramatically smaller government and of a budget that is balanced without raising taxes. Democrats argue for what Obama describes as a balanced approach, one that includes new revenue and treads cautiously around social security, medicare and social programmes that provide a safety net for the poor. Both parties insist that theirs is the only path back to what voters say they want most: a stronger economy. With the debt deal, the US has prevented a downgrading of its credit rating but its reputation lies in tatters. It is already being suggested that the Chinese model might be a more efficient one. Among foreign leaders and in global markets, the political dysfunction in Washington as the nation moved to a default have eroded America’s already diminishing aura as the world’s economic haven and the sole country with the power to lead the rest of the world out of financial crisis and recession. And Obama himself is aware of this change. He has all but acknowledged as much in recent weeks as he paired his decision to withdraw the “surge” troops from Afghanistan by next September with a repeat of his declaration that “it is time to focus on nation building here at home”. His decision to commit few new American financial resources to supporting the Arab Spring and his insistence that NATO allies must bear the brunt of operations in Libya were deliberate reminders that times have changed, and that America can no longer afford either new Marshall Plans or new wars. But acknowledgement is not leadership. And it is Obama’s leadership that is under scanner now. A politician who was elected on the promise of a different kind of leadership is having difficulty in projecting any kind of leadership. The US economy remains in doldrums and Americans are blaming Obama now. He can no longer blame George W. Bush. The global balance of power is changing rapidly and the recent crisis in Washington has merely underscored the shifting power dynamic. Japan is in political gridlock and the European Union can’t seem to get its act together. This makes China as the most credible global alternative. It is important to acknowledge that the decline of America has been much talked about in the past too. The difference is never before has the gap between American capabilities and its ambitions been this stark. Adm. Mike Mullen, the departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been very vocal about the national debt being the greatest threat to US national security. The world is taking note and it will reconfigure accordingly. It is for the US political establishment to get its act together if it wants to retain American supremacy in this century. Otherwise, be prepared for Pax
Sinica! |
|||||
Empty vessels
Years
ago, my wife and I boarded a coach due to leave London for a tour of a few European countries. The tour guide was an English lady who was very affable and conducted herself in an extremely pleasant way. All the passengers were introduced to each other. On the scheduled time, the coach started to pull out of the parking. Suddenly there was a thumping noise at the rear of the coach accompanied by a loud shout “Stop” ! “Stop!” “We have more friends from India”, I told my wife. "How do you know” she asked. I dwelt upon my experience and told her that in India whenever a bus is about to depart there is always someone who comes at the last minute and thumps the body of the bus while crying out loudly 'Roke', which in turn prompts a loud whistle from the conductor, halting the bus, to enable the anxious passenger to come on board, so, whether it is 'Hoshiarpur - Tanda Chowk' or 'Russel Square', it makes no difference.” Sure enough, the gentleman responsible for the thumping came on board with his wife in tow, panting heavily, desperately trying to arrange her Saree Pallav on her head. The tour guide asked the gentleman his name and he bellowed loudly “Sachdeva from India” and pushed his wife towards the vacant two seats, while simultaneously lunging for it himself. How truly characteristic of us, as I remembered similar feats of grabbing a seat, a passenger performs, when boarding a bus in India. All passengers on board ; the coach commenced its journey and soon the cell phone of Mr Sachdeva rang out. Instantly he answered it by announcing “Sachdeva from England”. He probably was a man much missed by his friends because his phone would ring quite frequently and he would announce his location while answering it. Sample this “Sachdeva from 'the Channel' (while on the ferry), “Sachdeva from Callaigh”, “Sachdeva from Belgum”, “Sachdeva from Amsterdam”, 'Sachdeva from Paris” and so on. His booming response was often to the chagrin of the slumbering passengers. We were more than amused by the antics of Mr Sachdeva which was peppered by the sight of Mrs Sachdeva who initially came across as a demure saree-clad lady, but who quickly dropped her Indianess in favour of trendy tops and hip hugging jeans billowing smoke rings. The Sachdeva couple thus was a queer cocktail of a loud mouthed husband and a wife who wore different plumes. I thought of befriending Mr Sachdeva, but abandoned my attempts after he nearly choked me by aggressive back slapping amidst his guffaws. But I still jotted down his phone number. The tour ended and we came back to India. After a few days, I remembered Mr Sachdeva and wondered, how he would respond to the phone call and whether he would announce the country, as he was doing earlier. “Obviously he will not, I thought to myself”. Curiosity got the better of me, and I dialed his number. He picked up the phone and a voice by now familiar boomed at the other end “Sachdeva from Sainik farms”. The response left me totally flummoxed and the phone nearly slid out of my hand. I hung up, without responding wondering, what is it with these people, “Are they genuinely made so, or are they simply loud mouthed and a case of “Empty Vessels making more sound”. Pray what is the Sach, Deva (Truth,
Lord)? |
|||||
POINT One of the critical issues that has come to the forefront of the debate is whether the Lokpal be empowered to investigate allegations of corruption against the Prime Minister while he is in office. There may be some justification in this argument as the Prime Minister is not only the most important face of the government within India but also represents the people of India in the international community. Any investigation of allegations of corruption against the Prime Minister would affect the effectiveness of a critical institution of Indian democracy. However, it is also important to recognise that nobody is above the law and if India were to establish a society based on the rule of law, nobody, including the Prime Minister, should be excluded from the purview of any anti-corruption investigation. The Constitution of India does not provide for any immunity for the Prime Minister, Chief Minister or Ministers. Under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, immunity from criminal proceedings is available to the President and the Governor only during the term of his or her office. But even these provisions are subject to interpretation as to what is the scope of the immunity that is available and arguably, this immunity need not be available for acts of corruption, which are not in any way related to the legitimate exercise of constitutional powers by these authorities. Further, it needs to be mentioned that public office, including that of the Prime Minister, comes along with critical scrutiny for the exercise of all powers. The mere possibility of misuse of such investigative powers by the Lokpal is a woefully weak argument to exclude the Prime Minister from the Lokpal's jurisdiction. The global trend on the question of seeking accountability is to recognise one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law - however high a person is, the law is above him. The Lokpal Bill should ensure that there are adequate checks and balances to limit the instances of frivolous cases being brought against the Prime Minister. The Bill ought to envisage a separate process for seeking the investigation and prosecution of the Prime Minister by adding a higher level of scrutiny and review mechanism by an Independent Operations Review Board. The purpose of this additional level of mechanism that will have the power to sanction the investigation against the Prime Minister on the basis of prima facie evidence is to ensure that the investigation is not a wild goose chase, but rather based on concrete evidence subject to further verification. This will also provide the necessary checks and balances for the independent functioning of the Lokpal. In my view, the Prime Minister should be within the jurisdiction of the Lokpal's investigation. The Constitution of India has provided a very strong framework to ensure the right to equality and equal protection of laws. In the past, there have been instances when the Prime Minister of India and his actions have come for serious scrutiny, including leveling of allegations of corruption. Due to the lack of independent investigative mechanisms for dealing with allegations of corruption against the Prime Ministers, a fertile ground has been created for politicisation of corruption leading to the Indian citizenry losing faith in the legal system's ability to effectively deal with corruption. There is a historic opportunity to establish an institution in India that will not only address the issue of corruption but also, more importantly, seek to restore the faith of the Indian citizenry in democracy and the rule of law. Rule of law in India cannot be protected, if corruption is not addressed with all sense of honesty and integrity by the government. The Lokpal Bill, in my view should bear in mind that the institution of Lokpal has the ability to transform the governance paradigm in India and even inspire other institutions to work more effectively. While the inclusion of the Prime Minister within the Lokpal's jurisdiction will ensure due empowerment of the institutional machinery to fight corruption, the very exclusion of the Prime Minister will affect both the credibility and the legitimacy of the institution. Lokpal's jurisdiction should not be limited by excluding the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister plays a critical role as the Chair of the Cabinet in the decision-making processes relating to the government's functioning.
Keeping judiciary out There is a deep concern that corruption in judiciary has affected the judicial process and people's faith in the Indian legal system to deliver justice has indeed been shaken. Since the existing institutional machinery does not provide a robust framework for seeking accountability of the judiciary, there is a case for establishing an institutional framework for the fight against corruption. However, Lokpal will not be a suitable institution for investigating allegations of corruption against the judiciary. The nature of judiciary as an institution under the existing scheme of constitutional governance in India puts the judiciary in a special situation for it has the power to adjudicate on the constitutional validity of all legislation and the powers exercised by the government. It will also be involved in adjudicating on the constitutional validity of the powers exercised and the decisions taken by the Lokpal under its statutory obligations. The inclusion of the judiciary within the Lokpal Bill will weaken the proposed institutional framework in its effort to seek transparency and accountability in governance. More importantly, the context of corruption in the judicial process as well as the members of the judiciary involved in acts of corruption deserves a separate but equally effective process, which ensures that accountability, is institutionalised. There is a case for strengthening the anti-corruption provisions of the Judicial Accountability Bill and all efforts need to be taken to ensure that there is no sense of tolerance or for that matter indifference when it comes to acts of corruption in the judiciary. (The writer is Vice-Chancellor, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana)
|
|
CounterPOINT Indeed, the debate about the office of the Prime Minister in an evolving parliamentary democracy is never sterile. The exclusion of a serving Prime Minister from the jurisdiction of the Lokpal in the Government's Bill is a principal point of contention but is not without compelling logic when rationally examined. The suggestion that our commitment to equality before law, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, requires that the Prime Minister not be treated differently in matters of investigation and prosecution is untenable considering that the equality clause itself permits rational classification. Having regard to the nature of the Prime Minister's duties and his position at the core of a parliamentary form of Government in which he is "the keystone of the cabinet arch" and not merely the first among equals, it is only fair to ensure that an incumbent Prime Minister is sufficiently protected against vexatious and malafide inquiries and prosecution. In any case, it is not as if the Prime Minister cannot be proceeded against for corruption under the existing laws including the Prevention of Corruption Act. The difference is that under the existing anti-corruption regime in India, there cannot be an automatic triggering of a prosecutional or inquisitorial mechanism against the Prime Minister as soon as any complaint, howsoever untenable, is lodged and rightly so. The question we must, therefore, ask is whether the nation's resolve against corruption in public life gets diluted merely by excluding the Prime Minister from the ambit of the Lokpal and also whether there are enough weighty considerations attached to and inherent in the office of the Prime Minister to justify his exclusion from the special law being contemplated. We must ponder whether it is necessary to debilitate institutions of parliamentary democracy while subserving the national agenda of combating corruption resolutely ? The conventions of the Constitution, as also the processes and rules of governance which have evolved with the maturing of our democracy, need to be harnessed to further strengthen Constitutional mechanisms rather than sacrificing and negating the fundamental principles of our republican charter which "are the slow accretion of centruries, the outcome of patience, tradition and experience….." A combined reading of sections 17 and 23 of the proposed Lokpal Bill makes it clear that as soon as any allegation of corruption is received by way of a complaint, the investigative/prosecutorial machinery of the Lokpal gets activated through the legislative mandate expressed in the words "shall enquire" in S.17 of the Government's Bill. Although Section 23 contemplates a preliminary inquiry or investigation into the complaint, the investigative process gets activated as soon as a complaint is received. The decision to initiate such an investigation or inquiry against the Prime Minister, against which there is no efficacious and urgent recourse, will inevitably discredit and cripple the nation's chief political executive in whose hands the security of the nation and the conduct of war and international relations is Constitutionally entrusted. It is, therefore, only in the fitness of things that in the proposed Lokpal Bill, the Prime Minister has been excluded from its application. The argument that corruption cases against serving Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers in the past have not led to political instability and considering that there was no change of government when the JMM and other cases were being investigated, misses the point in narrowly perceiving political instability in terms of regime change alone. Political instability is a function of perception of credibility deficit in the processes of governance and decision making at the highest level, which the nation can ill afford at any time. The view that officers and institutions serving as part of the political establishment cannot be expected to freely and fearlessly discharge their functions in bringing to justice individuals in high places, is grossly unfair to those valiant defenders of our Constitutional conscience who have kept faith and vigoursly prosecuted the high and mighty in the past. The cases against a Prime Minister in the JMM case, serving Chief Ministers of Bihar and Jharkhand and more recently the Lokayukta's findings against a serving Chief Minister of Karnataka etc would demonstrate that no special law is required to deal with allegations of corruption against high political functionaries as long as we have men and women of character and integrity who will not dither in the discharge of their public duties. We know that the efficacy of any law depends upon the wisdom and sense of justice of those who administer it. For all the above reasons, it is desirable that the Damocles' sword is not allowed to hang over the head of a Prime Minister even after his retirement in connection with acts performed as Prime Minister. The fact that the Prime Minister is not immune from criminal liability under the existing laws, and that these have been invoked in the past coupled with examples of conviction of Prime Ministers in countries like Japan, Israel and Italy, decisively establish the point that the pervasiveness of corruption is not the consequence of inadequate laws. Rather, it is the general decline in standards of personal and political integrity that has on occasions put to shame a nation of a billion plus people which draws its inspiration from the national motto "Satyameva Jayate". (The writer is Union Minister of State for Planning, Science & Technology and Earth Sciences. The views expressed are personal
|
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | E-mail | |
The
The