|
|
|
|
|
Time-tested leaders
Uncanny estrangement |
|
|
Death of a ruthless leader
Debate on governance system
Mr Ghoosh
Fighting corruption with RTI
Why officials often deny information
|
Time-tested leaders
Leaders are being tested as Assembly polls approach in Punjab. The veteran war horse of Punjab politics has now been declared as the next Chief Ministerial candidate for the Shiromani Akali Dal. It is only logical that the person who has been the Chief Minister of Punjab four times should lead the party in the next polls. Mr Parkash Singh Badal is a tireless campaigner who pulls crowds and gets his message across effectively. However, there is one wrinkle in this picture. For some time now, it has been widely expected that the person who would lead the SAD and thus be its Chief Ministerial candidate is Mr Sukhbir Singh Badal, the Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab. In fact, it was expected that he would now don his father’s mantle. The octogenarian leader will, no doubt, be a major asset to his party, given his long experience and his grassroots level support. However, it would be hard to dispel the impression that there is a degree of unease in the rank and file of the party about the yet untested younger Badal and perhaps there are issues regarding his acceptability. On the other hand, it could simply be the case of letting the more seasoned veteran perform the role he is most comfortable with. A year ago it seemed that young people were the emerging leaders. Much was read into former Finance Minister Manpreet Singh Badal splitting away from the Shiromani Akali Dal. His message found resonance among young people, and his rallies were well attended. In recent weeks, however, realpolitik has asserted itself and there have been desertions by key aides from the Manpreet Badal camp. There is surely more to come as elections approach, but the fall of idealism at the altar of the hurly-burly of politics is disappointing. |
|
Uncanny estrangement
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa’s announcement on Monday expelling from the AIADMK her closest aide Sasikala Natarajan, along with Sasikala’s husband M. Natarajan and 12 members of their extended family has set political circles aflutter in the state. It is being seen as no mere parting of two erstwhile friends but something that would have a bearing on the state’s administration too. Unlike most political leaders who have a coterie around them, Jayalalithaa, a spinster, has been known to be deeply suspicious of people. If there was anyone who she trusted and who stood by her through thick and thin it was Sasikala, who lived in Jayalalithaa’s Poes Garden residence in Chennai, away from her husband and family who were barred from entering the bungalow. Now, that vital link has been snapped and Sasikala has been forced to move out with the door slammed shut on her. The extraordinary friendship between the two has ended as abruptly as it began 25 years ago. Understandably, there is intense speculation on what led to the estrangement. Considering that an earlier break between the two in 1996 was sparked by widespread whispers that it was Sasikala whose association with her had brought about her defeat in the assembly elections, one is left wondering whether this is a clever ploy to distance herself from her because Sasikala is a co-accused in the disproportionate assets case which is in process in a Bengaluru court. Just as the two women came together again after the first estrangement, would they come together yet again when the case storm abates? Equally plausible is the theory that Jayalalithaa was upset over the interference of Sasikala’s family members in the administration and their political overreach and that she felt they needed to be shown their place. Whatever be the motivation for the break, there is jubilation among the cadres who resented the extra-constitutional power that members of the Sasikala clan wielded. It would indeed be prudent for Jayalalithaa to use this to good effect to establish her credentials as one who will not allow her administration to be tarred by nepotism and misuse of power. |
|
|
Death of a ruthless leader
The death of North Korean communist dictator Kim Jong-il, known for his ruthless style of functioning, has come at a time when his youngest son and nominated successor, Kim Jong-un, was still in the process of getting full control over the levers of power. Kim Jong-il, called “Dear Leader” by members of the ruling Workers Party and others, had not been keeping well since 2008, when he survived a major stroke. But few believed that his end would come so soon. His unrealistic policies had led to his country getting isolated internationally. North Korea has been knee-deep in poverty for many years, yet he walked out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to go ahead with his controversial nuclear weapons programme. He was so obsessed with weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that he continued to defy international opinion despite the imposition of UN sanctions. In 2006, Kim Jong-il conducted nuclear tests to demonstrate that North Korea was capable of producing WMDs. International efforts to get the North Korean nuclear weapon programme capped are on, but there are uncertainties ahead. Kim Jong-un, the new ruler, has inherited many ticklish problems from his father. First of all, the young leader has to fully establish himself as the head of government to enter into any kind of negotiations over the nuclear issue. The Communist Party of North Korea has named him as the head of the committee that will oversee his father’s funeral on December 28. This is the first test of his leadership. He has to ensure that the ruling elites, including those associated with the powerful military, extend him full cooperation in this hour of trial. He will also have to defeat the designs of the coterie that surrounded the departed leader to influence his thinking. India, which has been opposed to North Korea’s nuclear programme like other responsible nations, will have to wait and watch the moves the new leader makes. He may immediately try to further strengthen North Korea’s relations with China, which has been providing maximum economic aid to overcome its food problem. This may help Kim Jong-un to consolidate his position as the real centre of power. He cannot afford to ignore the acute economic problem his country has been faced with for a long time. |
|
|
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. — Albert Einstein |
Debate on governance system
The debate triggered by ShashiTharoor’s suggestion that the present parliamentary system of government has run its course and that it is time to consider switching to the presidential system is not new. The idea has been mooted more than once earlier and has always been wisely rejected. Frustration with the impasse created in the working of Parliament and decision making from time to time, as at the present juncture, is understandable but unwarranted on merits. As it is, we have sometimes been troubled by the presidential style of some of our Prime Ministers in a federal polity. The future thrust has to be towards greater decentralisation, going down to the level of the panchayat and municipal government, with appropriate coordination mechanisms to ensure harmonious functioning both laterally and vertically. Centralisation in a highly diverse society in multiple stages of economic and social development can be authoritarian and strain the democratic dharma. Meaningful participation is essential to carry forward governance through the broad consensus required at all times. It is particularly necessary in an era of coalition politics. It was poet Alexander Pope who wrote, “For forms of government let fools contest; Whatever is best administered is best”. It is not the system but the manner in which it is administered that matters. A badly administered presidential system is unlikely to work any better, apart from its inherent demerits for a country like India. Our Parliament has malfunctioned because MPs and parties are sometimes more interested in playing politics than in good governance and the national interest, howsoever perceived. Poor governance and drift by the government has also contributed to a sense of destructive anger. Neither is a product of the system per se. Healthy elements of a presidential system that could provide stability and competence could be incorporated in the parliamentary system by mandating that a vote of no confidence in the government of the day shall be accompanied by a constructive vote of confidence in any other member of the House. A partial list system that allows a certain (small) percentage of total party members to be selected by proportional representation could also draw in the specialised talent required to run a modern, complex, technologically driven government. Both these practices are followed in Germany. It is well established that one of the major engines of corruption and mal-governance is election funding, which generates and is greased by black money and, with muscle-power, has criminalised politics. Registration of political parties by law, based on a constitutional amendment, would also help clean up politics and make political parties genuinely democratic and subject to financial accountability. However, the very discussion of political reform seems taboo! Corruption is both a cause and consequence of poor governance and must be attacked from both ends. But the disease is surely more important than the symptoms and is, therefore, reason to look beyond the Lok Pal Bill to put things right. Reforms are necessary not merely in the Vigilance, CBI and judicial structures but, specially, in the police whose independence must be ensured through mechanisms spelt out by various commissions and committees. Protracted administrative processes with several and, often, parallel filters and the new practice of handing decision-making to ad hoc Groups of Ministers, unlike the permanent committees of the Cabinet, tend to blur accountability and collective Cabinet responsibility. There has been more than one administrative reforms commission whose findings have languished, much like those of the Law Commission and similar bodies. The Adhaar (UID) programme offers promise of better governance but is now a target of attack. All parties and Parliament are responsible for taking their eye off the ball and perpetuating business as usual. Anna seems unable to see things in the round and has been parroting his my-JLP-or-nothing mantra with threats of fasting, gherao and jail bharo agitations if his deadlines are not met. The irresponsible slogans of Team Anna too, such as demanding panchayat and street legislation to be endorsed by Parliament, are nothing but a call to violence and anarchy. The man has been given a very long rope and cannot hold the country to ransom. The government and Parliament must be given reasonable time to formulate and adopt a broadly consensual Lokpal Bill and related legislation. The economy is slipping into recession and the rupee was in free fall. Food prices are down but bold decisions on reform and reviving production and investor confidence are required to turn things around. The Prime Minister needs to broadcast to the nation to reset a purposeful national agenda and improve the government’s appalling public communications so that people are made aware of what is going on instead of having to depend on motivated leaks and “breaking news”. All institutional spokespersons have been sidelined in favour of Congress party and ministerial voices seeking to counter Opposition charges and daily innuendo, mostly in TV panels. This makes for poor reactive rather than proactive public relations. There is simply no public information philosophy or policy so vital in this information age. Meanwhile, in J&K a suggestion by Farooq Abdullah that cinemas and bars, earlier banned by jihadis, be reopened has aroused separatists’ fury on the ground that it offends Islamic sentiment and will promote immorality. The Mirwaiz and the Jamaat leader, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, have both called for a “religious decree” against the former Chief Minister. This nonsense must be rejected out of hand as J&K is not under Taliban rule. As mystifying is the resurrection by the J&K Human Rights Commission of an old red herring — the alleged brutal mass rape of a large number of Kunnan Poshpora women in Kupwara district by an Army detachment from Trehgam on a cordon and search operation in February 1991. The current complaint is that the case was prematurely closed by the authorities. A committee of the Press Council, including this writer, investigated this and certain other incidents on a reference by Army Headquarters and found the Kunnan Poshpora case to be without foundation after visiting Kunnan, Trehgam and Kupwara and meeting everybody involved on all sides – the affected families, the villagers, the police, the Kupwara hospital, the district authorities, the Army, the Divisional Commissioner, senior government officials, politicians and the media. Absolutely nothing said by the “prosecution” tallied with the facts on the ground. A subsequent video film reconstructing the tales of the alleged victims, made and circulated for propaganda purposes, misfired and only served to show up the hollowness of the rape charge. No positive evidence other than say-so was led by any of those espousing the Kunnan Poshpora “atrocity”. Hearsay, fear and militant-politics prevailed over hard facts. Now that the Kunnan Poshpora incident has been revived, the State HRC will hopefully conduct a proper investigation rather than run a kangaroo court under militant pressure, which has time and again resulted in the issue in question, hysterically argued, petering out when the weight of evidence turns against those making the
charges. |
||||||
Mr Ghoosh
What do you call a Bengali who accepts bribes? Mr Ghoosh, of course. The joke made the rounds several years ago, snowballing and enveloping other communities. Ghooswala, Ghoosbeer, Ghoosain, Ghoosa and so on, acquiring lives of their own. One of the later jokes inquired why the government had decided to stop minting the 25-paise coins. The answer, predictably, was that the government found it so difficult to deal with one ‘Anna’, how could they possibly deal with four (annas)? Trust Indians to convert everything into a joke. The ability to laugh at the hard and grim realities of life possibly make for ‘happiness’, that occasional interlude in the ‘general drama’ of life. A Chief Minister’s fishing expedition abroad for elusive ‘foreign investment’ triggered a fresh avalanche of jokes. Impressed to see the home, limousine and the Ranch of an American politician, the CM asked how he had made his money. The American, of course, pointed out a distant bridge, smiled enigmatically and replied, “ Ten per cent, old chap, ten per cent”. When the American returned the visit, he was equally impressed with the CM’s lavish lifestyle and inquired how CMs here made money. The CM airily waved his arm and pointed to a non-existent bridge. “ But, I don’t see any bridge,” exclaimed the puzzled American, prompting the CM to guffaw. “Here, the rate is one hundred per cent, man.” The research guide of my wife was a venerable academic. One day, when we dropped into his house, the entire family was animatedly discussing the desirability of a prospective groom for his eldest daughter. They had short-listed four boys and were discussing the respective ‘plus points’. The last word was spoken by the girl’s grandmother. She resolutely pointed to one of the photographs and declared that he was undoubtedly the best catch. As all eyes turned towards the old woman, the wizened granny explained, “ He joined service only a year ago and has already added a floor to their house, bought a car for his mother and spent lavishly on his sister’s wedding.” The ‘apple of her eyes’, it turned out, had joined the Indian Revenue Service. The Income Tax Officer, she triumphantly added, earned so much ‘upri’ (extra) that he did not have to touch his salary. Years later, a bank manager in the coalfield confirmed the trend. He smiled bitterly and said that none of the officers in the coal mines around spent a penny from their salary. “How would you know?” I asked. “Because their salary is deposited in the salary accounts maintained by us,” he replied. I once found a lawyer-friend clutching his head in despair. “ I was so happy to win a difficult case after arguing convincingly,” he admitted, “ but my client has just told me that he had struck a deal with the magistrate and attributes the favourable order to the hamper he had arranged.” This is why anti-corruption movements leave me cold. In 1967, students ran through streets in several states, shouting, “Gali-gali mein shor hai/ CM saala chor hai”. In 1974, students rounded up allegedly corrupt traders and officials and paraded them with garland of shoes round their neck. In 1987, people merrily took bribes, shrugged and said, “ If the PM can do it, why can’t I ?” Will the Lokpal or law really change things ? I remain a
cynic. |
||||||
The Right to Information Act was passed in 2005 to contain corruption and encourage transparency and accountability. However, public servants continue to be swayed by the obsolete Official Secrets Act of 1923
With a clear resolve to contain corruption, which is deep rooted and all pervasive, Parliament enacted the Right to Information Act, 2005, by repealing the earlier virtually non-starter Freedom of Information Act, 2002. Through the later legislative venture every citizen is empowered to have an unqualified access to information from any public authority about its organisation, functions and duties; the powers and duties of its officers and employees; the procedure followed in the decision-making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; the norms set by it for discharging its functions, et al. In fact, information on all these and many other related counts, regarded as vital in the functioning of a democratic system of government, was required to be published by every public functionary within 120 days from the date of coming into force of this singular enactment. The stipulation of a specific time-bound period is an indication of both the urgency and imperative character of obligations to be discharged by public servants. Besides, every public authority suo motu is also obligated to publish all the relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing decisions which affect the public, and also provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to the affected persons. If all the requisite information about its functioning is published periodically by the public authority concerned, it would bring in its wake at least the two strands of democracy, namely, transparency and accountability, enabling the people to decipher if there were any ‘misdoings’ in the public authority’s ‘doings.’ Culture of transparency The yielding evidence of the strains of ‘corruption’ (read ‘misdoing’) is an offshoot of ‘transparency and accountability’. Curbing corruption thereby becomes a by-product of the citizen’s right to information. The avowed objective of the ‘practical regime of right to information’ to contain corruption is, thus, fructified by inculcating the culture of transparency and accountability. But how nearer have we come in realising the legislative objectives since the inception of the Act of 2005? Our record in this respect, however, is dismal. This is so despite reminding ourselves umpteen times every morning on the radio: “Hum janege, hum hak se janege; ... Kya hua, kya na hua, hum maloom karenge; ... kese hua, kahan hua, hum hak se janege.” The officers manning various public offices still continue to be swayed by the colonial cult of secrecy and non-accountability as if deriving their sustenance from the obsolete Official Secrets Act of 1923! One of the principal sources for this stale state of affairs is that the ‘public-interest-perspective’ of the right to information has not yet dawned upon our public officers. For this there are at least two closely related reasons, which readily come to our mind. One of these is the non-realisation of the true ambit of the right to information in terms of its enforceability. The right to information under the Act of 2005 is invariably linked with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Yet in its objective it is quite distinct from the constitutional fundamental right. Essentially it is a special statutory right with the sole objective ‘to contain corruption’ in the body politic by making the system of governance transparent and accountable. Moreover, unlike fundamental rights under the Constitution, the avowed objective of the right to information is not really to benefit the individual as an individual inasmuch as to benefit society as a whole. This shift of focus from ‘individual’ to ‘society,’ showing the primacy of ‘public interest’ over ‘individual interest’ is manifest in the provisions of section 6(2) of the Act of 2005, whereby an applicant seeking information is not to be required to ‘give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him’. The second reason for missing the ‘public-interest-perspective’ of the right to information relates to the lack of conceptual clarity about the scope and functional field of ‘other public interests’. The preamble to the Right to Information Act, 2005, specifically includes three strains of such interests: ‘efficient operations of the Governments’, ‘optimum use of limited fiscal resources’ and ‘the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information’. These are the ones that are ‘likely to conflict’ with ‘revelation of information in actual practice’. How to reconcile these conflicting interests is the recurring problem. On this count Parliament itself has provided the mode of reconciling them by emphasising that ‘paramountcy of the democratic ideal’ needs protective preservation. However, despite this prescribed prescription, it is often passed over. Consequently, the number of cases in which sought information is denied by Central or State Public Information Officers is on the rise. Such an approach eventually results in frustrating the very purpose of the right to information, which is to arrest rampant corruption by ushering in a culture of transparency and accountability. Moreover, the ‘other public interests’ that specifically refer to ‘efficiency’, ‘optimum use’ and ‘confidentiality’ have been concretely crystallised in various provisions of section 8 read with sections 9-11 of the Act of 2005. Section 8 deals with 10 categories of information contained in clauses (a) to (j) that are exempt from disclosure. All these categories, however, need not be construed as absolute exemptions. A close reading of these would reveal that they essentially bear a differential character, depending upon the objective sought to be achieved by each one of those exemption clauses. In public interest The public officer, for instance, is not obliged to give information if its disclosure is prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, relations with other foreign states or lead to the incitement of an offence. Against such absolute exemptions, disclosure of information available to a person in his ‘fiduciary relationship’ is only a conditional exemption, which means that information could be disclosed by the competent authority if he is satisfied that disclosure is in the larger public interest. There is yet another category of exemptions in which information could be withheld only for a specified period. In order to meet the formidable challenge of rising public anger and disgust over corruption, currently two Bills – Lokpal Bill and Citizen’s Right to Grievance Redress Bill – are slated to be considered in the winter session of Parliament. The promised purpose is to address aam admi’s grievances and curb day-to-day corruption. Be that as it may. Since information and the right to information are ‘formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption by bringing transparency and accountability, the enforcement of the Right to Information Act of 2005 needs strengthening on all counts. Indeed, the right to information is both a prelude and a condition precedent to all other legislative initiatives for controlling and curbing corruption. The writer is the Director (Academics), Chandigarh Judicial Academy. |
|
Why officials often deny information The
right to information carries with it a strong tag of ‘public interest perspective,’ which is often missing in the implementation of the Right to Information Act of 2005. This can be explained by reflecting upon the approach of the ground-level Public Information Officers. Very recently, in an appeal, the Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab (CIC), deprecated the decision of the Public Information Officer, Milkfed, Punjab (PIO), who denied information to the appellant regarding service rules under which the post of General Manager in the state’s milk cooperative was filed (The Tribune, November 11, 2011). The CIC also disapproved the PIO’s non-disclosure of the appointee’s resume and the details of his qualifications, experience and other documents. The PIO defended his decision by alleging that the information held by him about the “third party” was in the nature of fiduciary relationship (where one party is under a duty to act for the benefit of other) and had no relationship with any “public activity or interest.” Accordingly, in his view, the same was exempt from disclosure under section 8(j) of the Act of 2005 that specifically debars disclosure of information “which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.” However, the CIC, bearing in mind the conditional character of the exemption clause (j) that instantly favours disclosure even of “personal information” in “the larger public interest,” reversed the PIO’s decision by observing: “When candidates compete with each other for public posts, disclosure of the credentials/testimonials/qualifications or their merit in the entrance test/interview cannot be denied under the garb of fiduciary relationship... “Appointments to a public body are matters of public interest. The public has a stake to know who and how and with what qualifications and on what criteria a person has been appointed to a public post.” Another instance of the missing of ‘public-interest-perspective’ is found in a recent Supreme Court decision ICAI v. Shaunka H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781. In this case, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, a statutory body, refused to divulge the demanded information regarding the professional examination conducted by it to one of the unsuccessful candidates. The required information included disclosure of “the standard criteria relating to moderation” for the purpose of making revisions of evaluated answer scripts under relevant rules and regulations. Realising that the requested information “is intended to bring about transparency and accountability in the functioning of ICAI,” the Supreme Court counselled: “Examining bodies like the ICAI should change their mindsets and tune them to the new regime of disclosure of maximum information. The public authorities should realise that in an era of transparency, pervious practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place. Accountability and prevention of corruption are possible only through transparency...” — V. Kumar |
|
| 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 | |
