|
|
|
|
|
De-soiling the Ganges
Gas from Turkmenistan
Farmers face barriers |
|
|
|
Reflections on Parliament at 60
The curse of power
Why recall? Elect carefully
Make ‘paid news’ an electoral offence
|
De-soiling the Ganges
Worshipped
by the humanity living along its banks as the “life-giving mother” since ages, the Ganga is today losing its life to the same teeming millions. That is because we continue to use it just the way we ever did — a sink for all filth generated by hundreds of cities and towns served by it. It has lost its magical ability to cleanse all that enters its swirls, for there is just so much of it. The big-ticket Ganga Action Plan launched by Rajiv Gandhi in 1985 used up Rs 900 crore in 15 years, but the pollution only increased in that period. That continues to happen till date despite more funds being pumped in now, with greater contribution from the states affected. The Standing Committee on Environment and Forests has observed that despite “whatever efforts” made, and a huge investment incurred under various projects, the pollution level in the Ganga and the Yamuna continues to increase “unabated”. It has blamed the “engineering-centric” approach of the government that lays “undue emphasis on the creation of sewage treatment plants”. It wants the engineering approach to be integrated with a society-centric approach, “through which people living on or around the banks of the rivers are involved.” That the various measures thus far have not worked has been stated earlier by the CAG and environment experts too. What needs to be realised is that the steps being taken — like setting up sewage treatment plants — are not futile, only the rate of increase in the sources of pollution is outstripping the growth in cleansing infrastructure. A case of mismatch of funds allocated and needed. The solution does lie in marrying the engineering and social efforts. The society that pollutes rivers — towns and industries — has to take the responsibility of cleaning up too. If that raises the living or production cost, so be it. This is survival we are talking about. People have to be made aware of what pollution is doing to them, and their life spans. Only then will the government be able to enforce the laws and allocate the massive resources required for the task.
|
|
Gas from Turkmenistan
With
the Cabinet approval for a pricing agreement for the gas that will be supplied through the proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, India is now ready for its full support to the ambitious project. The way has been cleared for the signing of the General Sale and Purchase Agreement (GPSA) between Gas Authority of India Limited and TurkmenGas of Turkmenistan. India’s commercial interests have to be protected as it is at the tail-end of the pipeline. The pricing details have been finalised in accordance with the formula used for such international contracts. India may have to pay a little more than Pakistan and Afghanistan because these two participating countries will get some transit free from New Delhi. In any case, it is a wise decision to go in for the TAPI pipeline project because there is no doubt about it becoming a reality unlike the idea of the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline which had to bring Iranian gas to India. The reason is simple: the TAPI project has the US backing and there is no opposition to it from any side. Russia, too, has been giving all kinds of support to the TAPI project. Russia’s GazProm had been keen on its association with the IPI gas project too, but it wanted a role without bidding for it which could not be possible. Russia’s South Asia policy has undergone a drastic change which can be seen in the emergence of the Russia-Pakistan Joint Working Group on Energy Cooperation. There is a major problem of security that the TAPI project will face. From Afghanistan the pipeline will entre Quetta in Pakistan’s Balochistan province and then reach Multan to terminate at Fazilka in India. Since the Asian Development Bank is a major investor in the project, it must have sought guarantees from all the stakeholders. The US has been giving assurance of safety in Afghanistan, but that is not enough. Questions have been raised about its security in insurgency-hit Balochistan too. A foolproof security arrangement is a must for the TAPI project. India needs Turkmen gas more than Pakistan and Afghanistan to meet its growing energy demand and, therefore, it must do all it can for the speedy implementation of the project.
|
|
|
Farmers face barriers
During
his visit to Punjab last week eminent scientist M.S. Swaminathan pleaded that farmers should be free to sell their produce anywhere in the country. Inter-state and intra-state barriers exist. Every state has its own Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Act, which bars direct sale of farm produce. It requires farmers to carry their produce to government-regulated markets (mandis), where buyers are forced to pay heavy taxes apart from commissions and fees charged by middlemen. A regulated market in Punjab serves an area of 115 sq km and a farmer has to incur transportation charges and then wait, sometimes in rain, for officials of procurement agencies to lift foodgrains. The minimum support price is always the maximum. Initially, the Act helped farmers by providing them an assured market and saved them from fleecing by cartels of private buyers. Labourers cleaned, weighed and stocked grains. The Act did not allow private market yards as no private investment was fortcoming. Things have changed in recent years. The state governments collect hefty taxes but do not provide matching facilities. Farmers are left at the mercy of “arhtiyas” (commission agents), who also double up as exploitative moneylenders. The government helps them recover their dues by routing farmers’ payments through them. The Punjab Chief Minister himself goes to Delhi to scuttle the Centre’s plans to make direct payments to farmers. Such is the political clout of “arhtiyas” that even a so-called farmer-friendly Akali government does not show any interest in amending the APMC Act to give farmers a choice to sell their produce wherever and to whomsoever they like. Prices are manipulated to fall at the time of harvest. Cartels of middlemen jack up prices later, and also benefit from exports, whenever allowed. The BJP, which enjoys the support of traders, opposes FDI in multi-brand retail and the Shiromani Akali Dal, sacrificing the interests of farmers, backs it. Some 16 states have adopted the model APMC Bill circulated by the Centre. Punjab is not one of them.
|
|
|
You're blessed if you have the strength to work. — Mahalia Jackson
|
Reflections on Parliament at 60 IT was a proud day for India when Parliament celebrated its 60th anniversary. As one who had the privilege of reporting the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha through the first decade of the new order, memories came flooding back of those stirring days. Parliament was the centre of national activity and purpose as the Founding Fathers unpacked the Republican Constitution in passionate debate to legislate its intent and give wing to its great ideals. The preceding general election had itself been a triumph as a largely illiterate people voted to make democracy the instrument rather than the outcome of a social and economic revolution, unprecedented in the annals of world history. The media, largely print at that time, devoted very considerable space to the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate, including questions, which enjoyed high importance, motions, Bills and papers. Courtesies were extended but discussion was lively and no charge could be levelled against anybody not present in the House without due notice. For those of us in the Press Gallery, every debate was a seminar, a great learning process as fundamental issues and directions were animatedly discussed with a degree of preparation and erudition scarcely witnessed today. One can recall Dr Ambedkar, as Law Minister, entering the House with a large wicker basket laden with books and documents from which he would cite references to trace the origins of established principles of law and governance from around the democratic world. These were wonderful tutorials that Members greatly appreciated even as they in turn learnedly responded with the benefit of much grassroots experience. The early debates turned on fundamental issues: safeguarding and promoting plurality, property rights in the context of land reforms, economic priorities and planning, the shaping of non-alignment, language policy and states reorganisation, institution and capacity building and so forth. It is important to remember that the very first amendment to the Constitution introduced the concept of reasonableness in respect of any restrictions placed on the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The Attorney-General was called upon to express his opinion on complex legal issues and I can recall Motilal Setalvad and C.K. Dapthary addressing the House. This practice has fallen by the wayside and perhaps no Attorney-General has been summoned to the House for nearly half a century. The budget and Bills were debated with zest and all demands for grants were voted only after careful scrutiny. Now demands of several ministries totalling lakhs of crores are adopted without debate by a casual voice vote. The number of questions answered has fallen sharply and the practice of regular foreign affairs debates in every session has all but disappeared. Parliament worked many more days in the year than today and storming into the well of the House was unheard of. Debates were not televised.Those were the days of single party Congress rule, yet Nehru’s first and even second government contained outsiders like Shanmugham Chetty, John Mathai, C.H. Bhabha, C. D. Deshmukh and Baldev Singh.The Opposition was heard with respect though there were famous clashes among the titans on occasion with men like Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, Pandit Kunzru, Hiren Mukherjee and, later, Acharya Kripalani leading the charge. They were all veterans of the freedom struggle. Panchayati raj was slow in coming and only took root with the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments in the 1990s, after a false start in 1959. Nor was federalism pressed until the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-state relations reported. With the Congress being in power virtually countrywide, many Centre-state issues were disposed of by the Congress Working Committee or the AICC, within the party family. Things are very different today.On the 60th anniversary, Members themselves spoke with anguish about the decline in standards, with debate yielding to stand-offs, walk-outs, adjournments and boycotts. Transactional time has come down noticeably though perhaps more work is today done in committees. Obedience to the Chair is no longer axiomatic and zero hour has become a daily ritual. It is good that MPs of all shades were in an introspective mood and promised themselves to do better and restore the standards and something of the lost work ethic. However, the House did not cover itself in glory when it kow-towed to a body of protesters virtually to ban Ambedkar and other cartoons in certain NCERT texts. Such matters of “sentiment” should be left to educationists, parents and teachers rather than be determined by fickle and oftentimes unreasoning political diktat. Nor has parliamentary prestige been enhanced by mindless nominations to the Rajya Sabha. Sachin Tendulkar is a fine cricketer but is it not strange that he should be playing commerce-dominated IPL cricket matches and has not troubled even to take his oath. Rekha, the well-known film star, finally made an appearance and took her oath only to disappear from the Rajya Sabha within 20 minutes. Little or no parliamentary contribution can be expected from such nominees who can surely be used as brand ambassadors in other capacities. These are all crude manifestations of extended vote-bank, populist and patronage policies. More heartening was the “graduation” ceremony of 46 young LAMP Fellows (Legislative Assistants to Members of Parliament) last week under a joint programme run over the past couple of years by the Parliament Research Service (PRS), an NGO dedicated to servicing parliamentarians, and the Constitution Club, a forum to facilitate democratic engagement on the part of current and former parliamentarians. Through a rigorous all-India selection process, PRS recruits gap-year students and even young working people as 12-month interns who are then attached as research assistants to MPs of various parties. The interns assist them with background and inputs to participate more incisively and effectively in asking questions, intervening in debates and understanding complex legislative issues. The Constitution Club in turn places these interns with MPs. Both sides have found the experience enriching and of great value. The MPs have been enabled to perform better while for the interns, this is an exposure to parliamentary and political experience. Parliament’s own efforts to provide such a service has been found wanting. The LAMP experiment suggests the need not merely to underwrite its future but to encourage young persons to join a new Parliament-funded Indian Parliamentary Legislative or LAMPS cadre as a full time career to service both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha as well as the state legislatures. This would not only underpin the parliamentary process but offer challenging career opportunities that could lead to the training of persons who in due course might decide to enter active politics. Such an initiative would fit in well with a constitutional amendment to define and seek the registration of political parties so that they are rendered fully accountable. This is a good time for Parliament, the Constitution Club and the PRS to think about how best to move
forward.
|
||||||
The curse of power Father
had high ambition for his four sons. He wanted to see his eldest son in the White House. But destiny had a different course chartered for this son. As a fighter pilot in the US air force, during Second World War, his plane was shot down and he died. The second son had joined the American Navy. His boat was torpedoed by the Japanese. He swam ashore and pulled along a wounded sailor. For this act, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honour. His high intellect and charisma put him in the White House, thus fulfilling his father’s desire. Tragedy struck once again and he fell to an assassin’s bullet. The third son took on his slain brother’s mantle and contested for the Presidency. He won the California Democratic preliminary, but tragedy struck for the third time and his life too was claimed by an assassin’s bullet. Three sons lost in a row! Speaking at his funeral service, his youngest brother, the last of the four Kennedy brothers, Ted Kennedy paid him an uncommon homage and yet a befitting eulogy when he said, “My brother need not be eulogized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.” Tragedy struck the family the fourth time, when he drove his car off the bridge at the Chappaquiddick island, where he surfaced to safety, while his companion, a young woman, remained trapped in the car. This accident was to haunt him for the rest of his life and was a contributory factor to his losing to Jimmy Carter in the Presidential race in 1979-80. At age 30 he had become a Senator and won that seat for a record eight times, holding that seat for 47 long years. He successfully engineered innumerable sweeping pieces of legislation which directly changed the lives of millions of Americans. He died of a brain tumour before one of his life-long goals of universal healthcare legislation could be passed. Yet he did succeed in placing this bill at the forefront of US political debate. He could reach out to the Republicans and work across the aisle in the Senate to get things done. Speaking at his funeral, Barrack Obama called him “the most accomplished American ever to serve our democracy”. American flag flew at half mast. Ban ki-Moon, UN Secretary-General, called him “the voice of the voiceless”. Kofi Annan called him a “Liberal Lion”. They laid him to rest alongside his brother, John F Kennedy, at Arlington National Cemetery. He had served in the American Army as a private (an ordinary soldier) person. John F Kennedy’s only son went down into the sea while pilotting a small plane. They called these repeated tragedies “the curse of
power”.
|
||||||
Why recall? Elect carefully THE demand for the right to recall elected representatives and the right to reject candidates in elections has few takers at the Centre and in states. If political parties are strongly opposed to it, reasons are not far to seek. Clearly, except during elections to Parliament and state legislatures once in five years, no party would like to make itself accountable to the people for its actions.
After Anna Hazare reopened the debate last year, Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, senior BJP leader L.K. Advani and others opposed the right to recall. Apparently, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's call for a "political consensus" was aimed at mollifying Anna Hazare. But then the former was right because Parliament cannot enact legislation without the support of all political parties. Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid had hinted at an all-party meeting, but that was before the Assembly elections in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Mizoram and Goa. Recall can be a useful instrument for making MPs and MLAs accountable. While it would reassert Locke's principle that people have the "supreme power" to remove representatives who fail to live up to their expectations, it would herald the triumph of Rousseau's concept by ensuring that elected representatives work in accordance with the "general will" of the people. Based on emotion However, will recall succeed in a vast country like ours? It is too complex, impulsive and intolerant. It is often based on emotion, not reason; aggression, not harmony. It will increase the voters' burden and impose a further strain on the national exchequer. It may encourage personal animosities, faction fighting and clash of business interests. Not surprisingly, when H.V. Kamath moved an amendment in the Constituent Assembly for the introduction of recall, members such as Tajamul Hussain and R.K. Sidhwa had strongly opposed it. In 1974, Jayaprakash Narayan gave the call for the right to recall elected representatives during his "Sampoorna Kranti" movement. States such as Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Bihar have recall in local bodies. Gujarat is planning to introduce one where District Collectors can remove any elected local body representative and order a repoll in the vacancy created by recall. A recall petition will have to be backed by one-third of the electorate and the District Collector should find substance in the petition. Elected representatives can serve an initial two years of their five-year term before voters could exercise their right to recall. However, while recall can succeed in small local bodies and panchayats, it may not work for Parliament and state legislatures. Abroad, it exists only in Switzerland, the Philippines, Venezuela, British Columbia and a few federal states in the USA. One should look at the mind-boggling workload that the Election Commission would be forced to handle if recall is introduced for MPs and MLAs. By one reckoning, while five lakh people are required to sign a petition of recall, the Election Commission has to verify all the signatures. Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi has said that it would be an arduous task for the Commission to check signatures. Recall can also be misused by political opponents in elections. Losers may use it as a weapon to harass or defeat winners. Consequently, it may introduce an element of instability in the system.
'None of the above' Equally impractical is the demand for the right to reject candidates in elections. This is also called the 'None of the above' option. A big problem with this is the factor of destabilisation. One should consider a situation of the majority of people rejecting all the candidates in a given constituency. Clearly, the country cannot afford to have frequent elections. The electorate ought to elect the best of the lot and not reject all of them lock, stock and barrel. Moreover, there is an apprehension that if one does not vote, he may be intimidated, paving the way for impersonation. The inclusion of the right to reject in voting could be misused by some people to put out an unintended political message, especially in places like Jammu and Kashmir and the North-East where there is a perceived sense of alienation among people. Alternatively, the Election Commission has recommended to the Union Government the introduction of a new button (NOTA) in the electronic voting machines (EVMs) under Rule 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to help voters express their displeasure over candidates. Rule 49-O describes the procedure to be followed when a valid voter decides not to cast his vote and record this fact. The new button will not imply the right to reject; it only means that a voter can express his opinion against candidates. Indeed, a petition by the People's Union for Civil Liberties seeking NOTA is pending before the Supreme Court.
Criminals in politics The reasons for the demand for right to recall and reject are many -- increasing corruption and criminalisation of politics. Unfortunately, tainted candidates who get elected as MPs and MLAs and then become ministers because of their muscle power and money power have become a big threat to the system. One solution to the problem of criminalisation of politics is to bar criminals from contesting elections. The Election Commission, after due consideration, has recommended a ban on such candidates who are accused of committing heinous crimes which carry a sentence of at least five years; if charges were filed against a person before six months of elections; and if these were framed by a court of law and not merely after filing of the first information reports (FIRs). These reforms are overdue to stem the rot in the system and improve the quality of governance. There is need to redouble efforts to cleanse the electoral system of various ills so that people can make an informed choice. The focus should be on increasing the voters' awareness through education so that they turn out in large numbers in the polling booths and elect worthy candidates to Parliament and state legislatures. The late Nani Palkhivala strongly believed that voters should vote for the right person even in the wrong party rather than the wrong person even in the right party. This, in essence, holds the key to electoral reforms and good governance. The writer is a Professor of Journalism, Symbiosis International University, Pune
|
|
Make ‘paid news’ an electoral offence Unfortunately, successive governments at the Centre have shown lip-sympathy to various recommendations made by the Election Commission (EC). Former Chief Election Commissioners - N. Gopalaswami, T.S. Krishnamurthy, James Lyngdoh, Manohar Singh Gill and B.B. Tandon -- had all sought reforms but most of these remain on paper. In a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on April 13, 2012, Dr S.Y. Quraishi sought the Centre's intervention. He wondered why the Centre was reluctant to pursue the proposals because not all of them required Constitution amendment. The UPA government should evolve a consensus and implement the following recommendations expeditiously:
— V.E. Anand
|
|
| 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 | |
