|
|
|
|
|
Jobs for minorities
Contentious content
|
|
|
Dope-tainted athletes
India story suffers a setback
Loud and clear
NEW LOKPAL BILL UNFAIRLY DOWNGRADES CBI
|
Jobs for minorities The
spirit of the recently-approved 4.5 per cent sub-quota for minorities within the 27 per cent ‘other backward classes’quota in Central government jobs and for admission to Central government-aided institutions is in harmony with the recommendations of the Ranganath Mishra Commission which had two years ago gone into the question of the backwardness of minorities in the country. The commission had, in fact, suggested 10 per cent reservation for Muslims and five per cent for other minorities in government jobs. The 4.5 per cent that the Union Cabinet provided for last week as a first step is for all minorities, including Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Parsis. That the government’s announcement has come on the eve of the notification for elections in five states, including Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, is, however, a pointer to vote bank politics being played by the dominant party at the Centre. It is the same politics of expediency that various political parties in power have played for decades. In 1982 the Constitution had reserved 15 per cent and 7.5 per cent of vacancies in public sector and government-aided educational institutes for the SC and ST candidates respectively for five years, after which the quota system was to be reviewed. This period was routinely extended by the succeeding governments for reasons of expediency. In 1990, the then Prime Minister V.P. Singh added to this a reservation of 27 per cent for other backward classes. It indeed stands to reason that poor and backward Muslims and other minorities be not excluded from what is being given to the majority community in the shape of a quota for ‘other backward classes.’ But while the apex court has for long accepted caste-based quotas it is a moot point whether it would also accept religion-based quotas over which it has expressed reservations in the past. That underlines the need for quotas to be linked to poverty rather than castes and for the ‘creamy layer’ to be excluded from quota benefits. There is indeed a dire need for the entire system of reservations to be reviewed on merit and without passion. That this appears a tall order is, of course, quite another matter.
|
|
Contentious content These are difficult days for social networking sites. In the wake of Union Minister Kapil Sibal’s remarks regarding objectionable material circulating on the Internet, accessible through various social networking sites, we now have a situation — an order from a magistrate in Delhi — directing various social networking sites, including Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, to remove all “anti-religious” or “anti-social” content. While social networking sites are right in pointing out that the very nature of Internet precludes censorship, generally speaking they have responded positively to court orders in various countries. Differences in perception about what is objectionable often occur, and thus what is illegal in one nation may be legal in another, leading to confusion. Social networking media works on a pan-national network. It is a largely irreverent medium with its own code of conduct, which may at times offend the straight-laced. In much of the world, it has been allowed to operate relatively unfettered, and as a result it has also become a bastion of free speech. With the exponential increase in the number of Internet users in India, there are bound to be more and more conflicts between those who post various things on social networking sites and those who take objection to some content. It is thus important for sites to make an honest appraisal of their content and purge out that which is truly objectionable. On the other hand, it is important to treat such social networking sites as what they are, hangouts where largely young people spend their free time. They need not be taken with too much seriousness. While certain content posted on such sites is truly objectionable, and thus should be removed, care must be taken not to use a large brush in tarnishing what is truly one flat virtual world, through which millions of Indians stay connected with the information highway.
|
|
|
Dope-tainted athletes The one-year ban imposed on six dope-tainted athletes by the National Anti-Doping Agency is as good as a reprieve, given that they have practically served out half their ban periods already. Considering the paucity of quality athletes in India, it was almost inevitable that those who have shown promise – with or without drugs –be promoted as India’s lame offering to the track and field events in the London Olympics. This was in the circumstances the best thing to do — give them a ban that leaves these athletes with some chance, even if only theoretical, to make the athletics line-up look respectable for the Games. There are a lot of wheels within wheels in Indian sports, especially certain events like track athletics. Since the Commonwealth Games, some runners had been touted as really big hopes for India and some quarters had even projected them as world-class competitors. So when they got snared in the dope net, the Athletics Federation of India (AFI), the government, as well as the National Anti-Doping Agency were caught in a cleft stick. The ban ends for all the athletes towards the end of June or early July of 2012. While the list of qualified athletes will have to be forwarded to the International Olympic Committee within the first half of July, 2012, the AFI may well fall back upon ‘reserve’ athletes who qualify for the Games and then substitute them with the ones who are presently serving the ban. A really tenuous and intricate plan, which may not work at all. But our sporting federations have never been particularly up-front about their dealings, so this isn’t much of a surprise either. What, however, remains to be seen is how the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) take to the decision made by the NADA panel regarding these athletes. The IAAF has already gone on record, telling The Tribune that they will have issues if the sentence is ‘light’ (one year instead of the customary two-year ban for first-time offenders). While there has been no response from the IAAF office so far, it wouldn’t be a surprise if they come back with strong objections in the coming week.
|
|
|
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. — John F. Kennedy
|
India story suffers a setback This has been an extraordinary year for India. Even as the rest of the world continues to acknowledge India’s rise to global prominence, the Indian story of the last decade seems to be grinding to an abrupt halt. The world is pushing India to widen its horizons. Earlier this year during her visit to India, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said, “We are betting on India’s future...that the opening of India’s markets to world will produce a more prosperous India and South Asia. We are betting that India’s vibrant pluralistic society will inspire others to follow a similar path of tolerance. We are making this bet not out of blind faith but because we have watched your progress with great admiration.” She then went on to exhort India to lead, suggesting that “India’s leadership will help to shape positively the future of the Asia-Pacific. That’s why the United States supports India’s Look East policy, and we encourage India not just to look east, but to engage east and act east as well.” It is not merely the US but other smaller states in Asia-Pacific too have made their intention clear of viewing India in a different light. There is a growing demand in Asia today that India should expand its footprint. It was reflected in the visits of leaders from Vietnam and Myanmar to India this year as they sought to re-evaluate the foreign policies of their respective nations and in particular reduce their dependence on China. After years of complaining that India does not exhibit a concerted will to power – so crucial in the geopolitically murky landscape of East Asia – regional states are now recognising, albeit tentatively, that India still remains their best bet as they seek strategic balance in a region that has been transformed by the rapid ascent of China. China is too big and too powerful to be ignored by the regional states. But it is clear that regional states are now seeking to expand their strategic space by reaching out to other regional and global powers. Smaller states in the region are now looking to India to act as a balancer in view of China’s growing influence and America’s anticipated retrenchment from the region in the near future, while larger states see it as an attractive engine for regional growth. Neither India nor the regional states in East Asia have any incentive to define their relationship in opposition to China. But what they are certainly interested in is leveraging their ties with other states to gain benefits from China and to bring a semblance of equality in their relationships. It certainly remains to be seen if India can indeed live up to its full potential, as well as to the expectations of external actors. But it is indeed disconcerting that at a time when New Delhi should be rightfully reclaiming its leadership role in the region and beyond, the Indian government is paralysed to the point of looking like a lame duck government to outsiders. The Indian growth story is in trouble and a government which is led by an economist certainly recognises the challenges it faces. But there is no will to take tough decisions and follow them through. Jim O’Neill, the Goldman Sachs economist who coined the term BRIC a decade back, is now talking of India as being “the biggest let-down” of the four BRIC states arguing that India’s inability to attract foreign investment could actually lead to a balance of payments crisis. The Indian rupee is falling, foreign direct investment is drying up, growth is plummeting, and deficits are rising. And yet the Indian political establishment remains rudderless. The corruption scandals of the past year have sapped any will to take tough decisions. It is hard to believe that this is the government that won a mandate just two and a half years back. It looks like eternity! The opposition parties remain as opportunistic as ever with the BJP relinquishing the role of a responsible opposition. The manner in which the government has handled the retail sector FDI issue and the Lokpal underline the deep divisions within the ruling party itself. The Congress lacks a sense of direction and purpose and, more often than not, the party and the government seem to be singing from two very different hymn sheets. One of the most significant consequences of this domestic chaos is a gradual realisation across the world that the Indian story is not all that impressive and that India is still a long way off from emerging as a major global or regional power of any reckoning. This is one of the reasons for a growing sense of disenchantment in Washington about India. The US is willing to bet on India, a large part of the world is willing to bet on India too, but is India willing to bet on itself? This perpetual inability to set its own house in order and to send out a clear signal that New Delhi means business is not only costing India crucial foreign investment but is also damaging the perception that has been growing for the last few years about India’s ability to play a larger and more constructive role on global politics. This should have been India’s moment with the daunting domestic challenges facing the US, the crisis in the Eurozone, the political transition in China and turmoil in Russia. Yet India seems to have missed the bus one more time. Does anyone care? The writer teaches at King’s
College, London.
|
|||||||
Loud and clear Some people never need to use the microphone when delivering a speech. Their own sound system is so powerful that they can be heard miles away. One comes across such kinds at the funniest of places every day; at the office, at a public washroom, on the train, or even at the barber’s. Indeed, the loud-and-clear type is unmistakably spotted (or heard). He has no fear, no inhibition and no qualms about being heard by sundry people. He speaks unendingly into his mobile phone and even if seated yards away on the train, he seems like an immediate neighbour, so intrusive is his speech. He is also usually the one who has reason to spew venom at subordinates and does so without bothering about whether fellow passengers are sleeping, meditating, reading or just cozying up. This rude invasion of private space is so cacophonous at times that co-passengers are forced to request the offender to quieten down or to move to the toilet area to carry on his diatribe. This action can have either a disastrous or an exemplary effect, depending upon the mood of the offender and the person(s) offended. In office, too, if people are seated in open workspaces, they are liable to hear everything that a loud colleague has to say, even if it is very personal! Thus, one can often get the latest information on who is seeing whom and which movie is running well, without making any effort, just by overhearing the loud one’s conversations. There are also those who speak in excessively hushed tones when at a public place even if they have no state secrets to hide. They are extremely furtive about everything and it probably goes with the rest of their personality. They never enquire from their wives on the phone about the menu for dinner on any particular day. The loud-and-clear type on the other hand shouts out aloud that the palak-paneer cooked by his wife the previous day was very bland and that he was looking forward to some spicy stuff that night. It is one of life’s greatest mysteries that the fellow who has lots of nonsense to speak is the very one who does so without inhibition and without reducing his volume from its lofty heights. On the other hand, the shy type is the one who when compelled to make a public announcement in his weak voice, sounds like a radio station from the short-wave era, thus forcing listeners to strain their ears. At a recent seminar, the chief guest was endowed with a voice that was really bombastic but the content of his talk was utterly uninteresting. He went on for what seemed like hours. Although the power supply vanished (quite inexplicably), he was so high-pitched that even the last row could not fall asleep though they wished dearly that they could. Truly, a case of boring and ‘shor-ing’ people to death!n
|
|||||||
NEW LOKPAL BILL UNFAIRLY DOWNGRADES CBI It
is with great anguish and distress that I write to express my dissent with the Lokpal Bill as presented to Parliament. The Bill has been a great let-down, because many expectations had earlier been aroused and these have now been belied. One of the more important expectations was of course an autonomous CBI nearly on par with the independent judiciary about which we can be rightly proud of. Let me confess that, until recently, I was not a staunch votary of the Lokpal concept. I stood merely for a strong and autonomous CBI that would lawfully and effectively deter the dishonest public servant, especially the one in high places. After witnessing all the recent attempts by certain elements in our polity to browbeat and malign those who were vociferously and armed with eloquent logic propping up the need for an effective Ombudsman (by whatever name you call him), I now certainly endorse the need for a watchdog outside of government, who will stand like a rock and remain as objective as any principled human being can be. I am more than convinced that those who wield authority at the present juncture - not only at the Centre but in the 28 States as well - despite all their political differences, are united in not warming up to the idea of cleansing public life. A majority of them are no doubt honourable men and women. They clearly have the interest of the nation at the centre of their heart. But somewhere down the line they have erroneously come to the conclusion that instituting a Lokpal, which reflects the mood of the nation is a political climb down. This is why they further think that they will have to necessarily damn all those speaking up for probity in public life. Let us be honest. How many of us have not strayed at least slightly from the path of virtue, sometime or the other in our lives? I am not for a moment suggesting that Team Anna is omniscient, infallible or faultless or that they have conducted themselves in an exemplary manner. Actually, wittingly or unwittingly, they have contributed to the impression that they are being driven by forces opposed to the current establishment. The language used by some of them, including Anna, has also been too carping. The fight against corruption is too sacred and critical to be frittered away by such use of language that distracts and infuriates rather than inspires many who are on the fringe and share our agony in having to shell out for services to which we are entitled as citizens of this great country. In my long years of public life, I have understood the need for care and politeness in dealing with all your detractors who are waiting for you to trip. (This incidentally is what I am trying to do in an assignment that the Apex Court has given me, and I am gallantly holding on to it only to prove that no force on earth can deter me from discharging my responsibility faithfully to the Court and the nation till my last living day.)
n
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WAS SET UP in 1963 n
DELHI SPECIAL POLICE Establishment was first set up in 1941 to deal with bribes and corruption n
THE CONVICTION RATE of the CBI in criminal cases varies between 65 to 70 per cent n
SUO MOTO ACTION can be taken by the CBI only in Union Territories. Approval of the states required for the CBI to investigate cases in states. n
THE SUPRME COURT and the High Courts can order CBI inquiries anywhere in the country. n
CBI REPORTS TO the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on anti-corruption cases n
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAMS ( SIT) of the CBI have inquired into cases like the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, Bombay blast case, Securities scam etc n
IN 2010 CBI completed investigation in 1173 cases, filed 842 charge sheets in court, carried out preliminary inquiries in 115 cases and 815 cases remained pending. n
By the middle of 2011, the agency had filled up 3575 of the 4490 sanctioned posts of executive officers, 1270 of the 1522 support staff sanctioned and 153 of the 302 Law officers. And Anna has unfortunately tripped, giving a lot of ammunition to those who are desperately trying to see that he fails. We have to scrupulously avoid politicising an issue that does not permit subjectivity or character assassination. Empower the agency The Lokpal Bill downgrades the CBI rather unfairly and injudiciously. This organisation that has done yeoman service to the nation stands diluted. It will continue to be an appendage of the government. The unexpressed logic : an autonomous CBI spells disaster to democracy. Nothing can be farther from truth. There is mischief in circulating the false impression that an autonomous CBI is not accountable to anyone. This tends to ignore the fact that the CBI, at every stage of a case -registration, recording of statements, charge-sheeting or submission of a closure report, and seeking sanction for prosecution from government- is accountable to courts. The FIR goes to a Magistrate, as also a closure report or charge sheet. The CBI cannot just afford to let its guard off and will have to take care that it conforms to the law in the strictest sense. Also, supervision of investigation within the CBI is at least at five levels. In some cases, the Director comes in as the sixth tier. Also, any aggrieved person can go to Court to complain if any injustice has been done to him or her by the investigating officer. More than anything else, you must remember that the appointment of a Director is being made more transparent and clinical by bringing in the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India into the selection panel. Also, a carefully chosen Director should necessarily be an officer of great repute. Give him a tenure of five years-instead of the measly two now- and tell him he is not eligible for any government employment for at least five years after he demits office. You will then have a CBI Chief who will not hesitate to proceed against the mightiest in the country without fear or favour. You also need to give him the status of Cabinet Secretary so that his superior is only the Supreme Court of India and none else. If the Bill now in Parliament does not do all this, we can explain it only as a fear of the unknown. SEVERE CONSTRAINTS In specific terms, the public need to know that the CBI now operates under several severe constraints. First, it cannot proceed against an officer of and above the rank of Joint Secretary to Government of India, even when there is overwhelming evidence of his wrongdoing. Neither a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) nor a Regular Case (RC) can be registered against him without the leave of the government. What was only an executive order –the so- called Single Directive-, in the early 2000 was incorporated into the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act
(DSPE) from which the CBI draws its authority. To obtain such government permission, the CBI will have to reduce the information against a senior civil servant into writing and send it to the Ministry concerned. It will be dumb to expect such information not to be leaked to the delinquent concerned, because he holds an important position in the very same Ministry. And when a Minister is in collusion with such an officer, how can you expect the former to give his consent for the CBI to go ahead? This is the greatest infirmity of the Single Directive. Without repealing the relevant legal provision, you cannot expect a civil servant to be prosecuted successfully at the end of an investigation, which may otherwise have thrown up credible evidence of the misconduct in question. The requisite sanction for prosecution is seldom given quickly. Very often there have been deliberate delays with a view to protecting a misbehaving officer. In some cases such sanction is denied on dubious grounds. The general impression is that Courts can neither impose a deadline for sanction or question the rationale for a denial of sanction. Nothing pertaining to a civil servant can be non-justiciable. But here is a situation where the legalities are foggy. And when a CBI case fails in court, and the organisation feels that an appeal against acquittal is warranted, it is again at the mercy of a government. Without the latter’s approval, the CBI cannot proceed with an appeal. Experience is that this power has on a few occasions been misused through refusal of permission to appeal. The salutary provision against such abuse of authority will be to delete the relevant section from the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). There is no hope here also that the CBI will be released from the establishment’s clutches. Perhaps even more debilitating to the CBI is the dependence on the CVC and the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), as also the Union Home Ministry (MHA) for staff selection, especially IPS officers. The Director cannot bring officers of his choice from States, even when they are in requisite panels and are willing to come to the CBI on deputation from the States. I remember many instances in which I had been overruled on specious grounds. I would like the CBI to be given the kind of unbelievable independence I enjoy as the Chief of the SIT in Gujarat. This freedom has been conferred on me because I was appointed by the Supreme Court of India and my investigation is monitored by that court. Why can’t we give the same freedom to the Director, CBI, subject to IPS Cadre Rules? Where an IPS officer has an unblemished track record for efficiency and integrity, he is in the Promotion Panel prepared by the MHA, is willing to come on deputation to the CBI and the State Government is willing to release him, why should the CVC or MHA interfere in the process? But it does not happen this way. Either a regional bias or a caste affiliation is cited to deny the DCBI this unqualified authority. How can a DCBI produce goods, if he does not enjoy this minimal liberty? In the same manner, there is a tight control of the CBI by the DOPT in respect of financial matters. The DCBI enjoys very limited authority to spend, and he has to go to the DOPT with a begging bowl for a variety of things. This is unacceptable if you want a CBI that is swift and efficient. This is a long pending demand that has received only marginal attention from the government. The best solution would be to authorise the DCBI to draw all his requirements directly from the Consolidated Fund of India. LET LOKPAL REPLACE CVC Finally, what control will the Lokpal exercise over CBI? Conflict over this seems to have led to a worrying impasse. In my scheme of things whatever is being done by the CVC and DOPT, subject to the reforms I have suggested, could be transferred to the Lokpal. This would mean that the Lokpal will at best be a facilitator rather than a controller of the CBI. I know that Team Anna is not reconciled to this. It wants the CBI to be its investigative wing, or at least a subordinate which it can order to do certain investigations. Neither is acceptable to me. There is no way the Lokpal can order CBI around and interfere in the latter’s investigative processes. It is at best entitled to routine information on CBI cases as the CVC is now entitled to. But Anna and company will not agree to this, especially when the Bill now in Parliament weakens the CBI and does not strengthen it. This is a sorry state of affairs for which both government and the Team Anna are responsible. In the final analysis, the current situation demands sobriety and maturity among the contending parties. The struggle is likely to continue on the streets of Delhi, Mumbai or Chennai. This is not good for India’s image. It is not good either for attracting foreign investment, particularly when there is a growing impression abroad, that without a bribe you cannot do business in our country. This is shameful. We as citizens need to pursue all the opportunities now available to push our law makers into action that would penalise the corrupt and reward the honest whistleblower. (The writer is a former Director of Central Bureau of Investigation.)
|
|
| 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 | |
