Vote Smart India

The great land grab: India's war on farmers - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

2011-06-25T18:27:00.000+05:30

The great land grab: India's war on farmers - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

JanLokpal Part 3 of 3

2011-06-19T23:59:00.002+05:30

JanLokpal Part 2 of 3

2011-06-19T23:58:00.002+05:30

JanLokpal Part 1 of 3

2011-06-19T23:56:00.002+05:30

Murderers Eleven

2011-05-09T06:03:00.000+05:30

Murderers Eleven:

Indian cricket teams have notoriously been known for lacking the ‘killer instinct’. Here’s a look at one Indian team which has all possible predatory instincts.

Wah Sarkar decided to select 11 of our finest parliamentarians from the Lok Sabha to form a team of world beaters/killers/murderers/thugs. Out of 543 members, 162 MPs have pending criminal cases*. Thus it was a tough task narrowing this immensely talented bunch down to just 11. We have selected a team based on variety and ingenuity of crimes committed.

Legal Information Institute of India

2011-04-24T02:41:00.002+05:30

The Legal Information Institute (LII), an organisation at the forefront of driving open access in all things related to law, launches in India in a big way.

The Legal Information Institute of India (LII of India) was inaugurated by Dr M. Veerappa Moily, Union Minister of Law and Justice, in New Delhi on 9 March.

LII India has been accepted as the 34th member of the Free Access to Law Movement (FALM). It is currently a consortium of 8 partner law institutions (NUJS is one), and 4 supporting institutions. The Institute has its technical hub at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.

It encompasses a free legal portal on legislations, treaties and case laws. And is continuously being updated and developed.At present, LII India has 107 databases including legislation (the India code from 1836, state legislation, commentary on legislation), Indian case law (over 300,000 cases in full text from Supreme Court, High Courts and tribunals), treaties (all India treaties to 1975 plus over 800 bilateral treaties), law reform reports (from the Law Commission), legal scholarship (six law journals with scholarship repositories), cases concerning India and International Courts and Tribunals and cases concerning India from the pre-1873 English Reports.

The LawCite citator tracks case and journal article citations showing subsequent citation histories (in India and overseas) of Indian cases, law journal articles and treaties.Comprehensive searching facility is provided by its search engine, sino, with full boolean and proximity searching; by flexible displays of results (by relevance, date, database and citations); by consistent formatting of data across jurisdictions; by adding hypertext links between cases, legislations, treaties, law journal articles and law reform reports; by providing ‘noteups’ from texts too where they are cited; and by the automated extraction of parallel citations and creation of citation tables by the LawCite citator.

India’s Lead in Government 2.0 | USC Center on Public Diplomacy | Newswire – CPD Blog

2011-03-25T17:53:00.000+05:30

India’s Lead in Government 2.0 USC Center on Public Diplomacy Newswire – CPD Blog

Corruption : India's Growth Industry

2010-11-21T20:23:00.001+05:30

Corruption : India's Growth Industry

By: Prashant Agrawal.

India’s biggest growth industry isn’t outsourcing, pharmaceuticals or auto manufacturing – I believe it’s political corruption. In the last week, three top Indian officials have resigned for three different scandals. They all deny wrongdoing but corruption, long an issue in India, has again become topic number one for public debate.

The magnitude is mind-boggling. According to the Indian government’s Comptroller and Auditor General, the Indian exchequer has lost anywhere between $22 billion and $45 billion in the most sizable of the three current scandals: the alleged mishandling of a second-generation spectrum auction that favored a few bidders.

This isn’t the British Members of Parliament expenses scandal, where MPs were accused of overinflating expense reports; the biggest pilferer in that scandal made off with less than $1 million. In the U.S., lobbyist Jack Abramoff took in less than $100 million for his misdeeds.

Even in India, past scandals look ho-hum. In the 1980s, the largest corruption scandal involved Swedish Bofors artillery guns. Total sum involved: $25 million. In the 1990s, there was a corruption scandal involving fodder in Bihar. Total sum involved: less than $250 million.

We don’t yet know the precise sums involved in the recent India (pass-the) hat-trick but their audacity is stunning.

The Adarsh housing scandal is the equivalent of the State of California building a 30-story skyscraper in Beverly Hills for Iraq war veterans, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. General David Petraeus taking apartments instead. Now, the environment minister is threatening to tear down the building for violating coastal environmental norms.

Incompetence and alleged corruption involving the preparations for the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi in early October are still percolating. They have tarnished the reputation of Organizing Committee Chairman Suresh Kalmadi, who resigned from a parliamentary post under pressure from the ruling Congress Party.

But the biggest of the scandals from a financial perspective came to a head in the past few days. Two years ago, the Indian telecommunications ministry auctioned off additional 2G spectrum. With approximately 300 million mobile subscribers in 2008, India was a must-be place for any global telecom player. But there was no auction because the telecoms minister ignored the advice of several other senior government ministers and the telecoms regulator and allocated the spectrum to nine companies or a first come, first serve basis, with prices set at levels of a previous allocation in 2001.

The government received approximately $400 million for each license for a sum total of $3.6 billion. The CAG claims the value of each license should have been much greater, as much as $45 billion. Even the most conservative estimates show that the government should have netted at least $22 billion in 2008. Whether the now-former telecoms minister A. Raja personally benefited was not reported by the CAG.

The scam is so large that the media is having a tough time describing it using lakhs (100,000) and crores (10,000,000.) In the country that invented zero, there is no commonly used term for anything larger than a crore. Therefore, the media says that the government lost potential revenue of 1 lakh crore rupees.

Translated into English, that means one hundred thousand times ten million rupees. Read that again. Sounds large but few understand the scale unless you write one trillion. I asked several Mumbai financiers if they truly understood how much one lakh crore is and they said it was big but they had no understanding of the real scale.

The Indian government was potentially deprived of the equivalent of approximately one third of its annual budget. In American terms, the equivalent would be more than $1 trillion dollars.

Another way of looking at it: Here is a quick list that shows what the government could have bought with $45 billion.

–Food for every destitute Indian for the next decade. Not this year, not next year, but for the next 10 years.

–Funding of the flagship employment program for India’s marginalized for the next five years. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme provides any Indian with employment for 100 days at a wage rate of 100 rupees.

–Primary schooling for every Indian girl for the next three years.

–Ten squadrons of new aircraft, an aircraft carrier group, and a couple hundred tanks. Take that, China.

–The reduction in every Indian’s tax rate by 15% for the next year, or the reduction of India’s outstanding debt by 10%.

The Indian government should step up and give a refund to all those that received a spectrum license and have a do-over. There will be much hue and cry that the government is punishing companies that were playing by the rules given to them. Working in India and many developing countries means having to make compromises at points but this was of a scale where nothing short of a re-run will be sufficient to cleanse the process.

It’s much too much to ask for an end to corruption in one fell swoop. But the government needs to end the astronomical scaling-up of it. If it doesn’t, within the next decade, the biggest Indian scandal may just involve the sum of a truly unfathomable $1 trillion.

US President Barack Obama's address to Indian Parliament

2010-11-13T04:36:00.001+05:30

Mr. Vice President, Madame Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Members of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and most of all, the people of India.

I thank you for the great honor of addressing the representatives of more than one billion Indians and the world's largest democracy. I bring the greetings and friendship of the world's oldest democracy - the USA, including nearly three million proud and patriotic Indian Americans.

Over the past three days, my wife Michelle and I have experienced the beauty and dynamism of India and its people. From the majesty of Humayun's Tomb to the advanced technologies that are empowering farmers and women who are the backbone of Indian society. From a Diwali celebration with schoolchildren to the innovators who are fueling India's economic rise. From the university students who will chart India's future, to you - leaders who helped to bring India to this moment of promise.

At every stop, we have been welcomed with the hospitality for which Indians have always been known. So to you and the people of India, on behalf of me, Michelle and the American people, please accept our deepest thanks. Bahoot dhanyavad.

I am not the first American president to visit India. Nor will I be the last. But I am proud to visit India so early in my presidency. It is no coincidence that India is my first stop on a visit to Asia, or that this has been my longest visit to another country since becoming President.

For in Asia and around the world, India is not simply emerging; India has already emerged. And it is my firm belief that the relationship between the United States and India - bound by our shared interests and values - will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century. This is the partnership I have come here to build. This is the vision that our nations can realize together.

My confidence in our shared future is grounded in my respect for India's treasured past - a civilization that has been shaping the world for thousands of years. Indians unlocked the intricacies of the human body and the vastness of our universe. And it is no exaggeration to say that our information age is rooted in Indian innovations - including the number zero.

India not only opened our minds, she expanded our moral imagination. With religious texts that still summon the faithful to lives of dignity and discipline. With poets who imagined a future "where the mind is without fear and the head is held high." And with a man whose message of love and justice endures - the Father of your Nation, Mahatma Gandhi.

For me and Michelle, this visit has therefore held special meaning. Throughout my life, including my work as a young man on behalf of the urban poor, I have always found inspiration in the life of Gandhiji and in his simple and profound lesson to be the change we seek in the world. And just as he summoned Indians to seek their destiny, he influenced champions of equality in my own country, including a young Martin Luther King. After making his pilgrimage to India a half century ago, Dr. King called Gandhi's philosophy of non-violent resistance "the only logical and moral approach" in the struggle for justice and progress.

So we were honored to visit the residence where Gandhi and King both stayed - Mani Bhavan. We were humbled to pay our respects at Raj Ghat. And I am mindful that I might not be standing before you today, as President of the United States, had it not been for Gandhi and the message he shared with America and the world.

An ancient civilization of science and innovation. A fundamental faith in human progress. This is the sturdy foundation upon which you have built ever since that stroke of midnight when the tricolour was raised over a free and independent India. And despite the skeptics who said that this country was simply too poor, too vast, too diverse to succeed, you surmounted overwhelming odds and became a model to the world.

Instead of slipping into starvation, you launched a Green Revolution that fed millions. Instead of becoming dependent on commodities and exports, you invested in science and technology and in your greatest resource - the Indian people. And the world sees the results, from the supercomputers you build to the Indian flag that you put on the moon.

Instead of resisting the global economy, you became one of its engines - reforming the licensing raj and unleashing an economic marvel that has lifted tens of millions from poverty and created one of the world's largest middle classes.

Instead of succumbing to division, you have shown that the strength of India - the very idea of India - is its embrace of all colors, castes and creeds. It's the diversity represented in this chamber today. It's the richness of faiths celebrated by a visitor to my hometown of Chicago more than a century ago - the renowned Swami Vivekananda. He said that, "holiness, purity and charity are not the exclusive possessions of any church in the world, and that every system has produced men and women of the most exalted character."

And instead of being lured by the false notion that progress must come at the expense of freedom, you built the institutions upon which true democracy depends - free and fair elections, which enable citizens to choose their own leaders without recourse to arms; an independent judiciary and the rule of law, which allows people to address their grievances; and a thriving free press and vibrant civil society which allows every voice to be heard. And this year, as India marks 60 years with a strong and democratic constitution, the lesson is clear: India has succeeded, not in spite of democracy; India has succeeded because of democracy.

Just as India has changed, so too has the relationship between our two nations. In the decades after independence, India advanced its interests as a proud leader of the nonaligned movement. Yet too often, the United States and India found ourselves on opposite sides of a North-South divide and estranged by a long Cold War. Those days are over.

Here in India, two successive governments led by different parties have recognized that deeper partnership with America is both natural and necessary. In the United States, both of my predecessors - one Democrat, one Republican - worked to bring us closer, leading to increased trade and a landmark civil nuclear agreement.

Since then, people in both our countries have asked: what next? How can we build on this progress and realize the full potential of our partnership? That is what I want to address today - the future that the United States seeks in an interconnected world; why I believe that India is indispensable to this vision; and how we can forge a truly global partnership - not in just one or two areas, but across many; not just for our mutual benefit, but for the world's.

Of course, only Indians can determine India's national interests and how to advance them on the world stage. But I stand before you today because I am convinced that the interests of the United States - and the interests we share with India - are best advanced in partnership.

The United States seeks security - the security of our country, allies and partners. We seek prosperity - a strong and growing economy in an open international economic system. We seek respect for universal values. And we seek a just and sustainable international order that promotes peace and security by meeting global challenges through stronger global cooperation.

To advance these interests, I have committed the United States to comprehensive engagement with the world, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. And a central pillar of this engagement is forging deeper cooperation with 21st century centers of influence - and that includes India.

Now, India is not the only emerging power in the world. But the relationship between our countries is unique. For we are two strong democracies whose constitutions begin with the same revolutionary words - "We the people." We are two great Republics dedicated to the liberty, justice and the equality of all people. And we are two free market economies where people have the freedom to pursue ideas and innovations that can change the world. This is why I believe that India and America are indispensable partners in meeting the challenges of our time.

Since taking office, I've therefore made our relationship a priority. I was proud to welcome Prime Minister Singh for the first official state visit of my presidency. For the first time ever, our governments are working together across the whole range of common challenges we face. And let me say it as clearly as I can: the United States not only welcomes India as a rising global power, we fervently support it, and we have worked to help make it a reality.

Together with our partners, we have made the G20 the premier forum for international economic cooperation, bringing more voices to the table of global economic decision-making, including India. We have increased the role of emerging economies like India at international financial institutions. We valued India's important role at Copenhagen, where, for the first time, all major economies committed to take action to confront climate change - and to stand by those actions. We salute India's long history as a leading contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions. And we welcome India as it prepares to take its seat on the United Nations Security Council.

In short, with India assuming its rightful place in the world, we have an historic opportunity to make the relationship between our two countries a defining partnership of the century ahead. And I believe we can do so by working together in three important areas.

First, as global partners we can promote prosperity in both our countries. Together, we can create the high-tech, high-wage jobs of the future. With my visit, we are now ready to begin implementing our civil nuclear agreement. This will help meet India's growing energy needs and create thousands of jobs in both our countries.

We need to forge partnerships in high-tech sectors like defense and civil space. So we have removed Indian organizations from our so-called "entity list." And we'll work to reform our controls on exports. Both of these steps will ensure that Indian companies seeking high-tech trade and technologies from America are treated the same as our closest allies and partners.

We can pursue joint research and development to create green jobs; give Indians more access to cleaner, affordable energy; meet the commitments we made at Copenhagen; and show the possibilities of low-carbon growth.

Together, we can resist the protectionism that stifles growth and innovation. The United States remains - and will continue to remain - one of the most open economies in the world. And by opening markets and reducing barriers to foreign investment, India can realize its full economic potential as well. As G20 partners, we can make sure the global economic recovery is strong and durable. And we can keep striving for a Doha Round that is ambitious and balanced - with the courage to make the compromises that are necessary so global trade works for all economies.

Together, we can strengthen agriculture. Cooperation between Indian and American researchers and scientists sparked the Green Revolution. Today, India is a leader in using technology to empower farmers, like those I met yesterday who get free updates on market and weather conditions on their cell phones. And the United States is a leader in agricultural productivity and research. Now, as farmers and rural areas face the effects of climate change and drought, we'll work together to spark a second, more sustainable Evergreen Revolution.

Together, we're going to improve Indian weather forecasting systems before the next monsoon season. We aim to help millions of Indian farming households save water and increase productivity; improve food processing so crops don't spoil on the way to market; and enhance climate and crop forecasting to avoid losses that cripple communities and drive up food prices.

And as part of our food security initiative, we're going to share India's expertise with farmers in Africa. This is an indication of India's rise - that we can now export hard-earned expertise to countries that see India as a model for agricultural development. And that's another powerful example of how American and Indian partnership can address an urgent global challenge.

Because the wealth of a nation also depends on the health of its people, we'll continue to support India's efforts against diseases like tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, and as global partners, we'll work to improve global health by preventing the spread of pandemic flu. And because knowledge is the currency of the 21st century, we'll increase exchanges between our students, colleges and universities, which are among the best in the world.

As we work to advance our shared prosperity, we can partner to address a second priority - our shared security. In Mumbai, I met with the courageous families and survivors of that barbaric attack. And here in this Parliament, which was itself targeted because of the democracy it represents, we honor the memory of all those who have been taken from us, including American citizens on 26/11 and Indian citizens on 9/11.

This is the bond we share. It's why we insist that nothing ever justifies the slaughter of innocent men, women and children. It's why we're working together, more closely than ever, to prevent terrorist attacks and to deepen our cooperation even further. And it's why, as strong and resilient societies, we refuse to live in fear, we will not sacrifice the values and rule of law that defines us, and we will never waver in the defense of our people.

America's fight against Al-Qaida and its terrorist affiliates is why we persevere in Afghanistan, where major development assistance from India has improved the lives of the Afghan people. We're making progress in our mission to break the Taliban's momentum and to train Afghan forces so they can take the lead for their security. And while I have made it clear that American forces will begin the transition to Afghan responsibility next summer, I have also made it clear that America's commitment to the Afghan people will endure. The United States will not abandon the people of Afghanistan - or the region - to the violent extremists who threaten us all.

Our strategy to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qaida and its affiliates has to succeed on both sides of the border. That is why we have worked with the Pakistani government to address the threat of terrorist networks in the border region. The Pakistani government increasingly recognizes that these networks are not just a threat outside of Pakistan - they are a threat to the Pakistani people, who have suffered greatly at the hands of violent extremists.

And we will continue to insist to Pakistan's leaders that terrorist safe-havens within their borders are unacceptable, and that the terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks be brought to justice. We must also recognize that all of us have and interest in both an Afghanistan and a Pakistan that is stable, prosperous and democratic - and none more so than India.

In pursuit of regional security, we will continue to welcome dialogue between India and Pakistan, even as we recognize that disputes between your two countries can only be resolved by the people of your two countries.

More broadly, India and the United States can partner in Asia. Today, the United States is once again playing a leadership role in Asia - strengthening old alliances; deepening relationships, as we are doing with China; and we're reengaging with regional organizations like ASEAN and joining the East Asia summit - organizations in which India is also a partner. Like your neighbors in Southeast Asia, we want India to not only "look East," we want India to "engage East" - because it will increase the security and prosperity of all our nations.

And as two global leaders, the United States and India can partner for global security - especially as India serves on the Security Council over the next two years. Indeed, the just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate. That is why I can say today - in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.

Now, let me suggest that with increased power comes increased responsibility. The United Nations exists to fulfill its founding ideals of preserving peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. These are the responsibilities of all nations, but especially those that seek to lead in the 21st century. And so we look forward to working with India - and other nations that aspire to Security Council membership - to ensure that the Security Council is effective; that resolutions are implemented and sanctions are enforced; and that we strengthen the international norms which recognize the rights and responsibilities of all nations and individuals.

This includes our responsibility to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Since I took office, the United States has reduced the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and agreed with Russia to reduce our arsenals. We have put preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism at the top of our nuclear agenda, and strengthened the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime - the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Together, the United States and India can pursue our goal of securing the world's vulnerable nuclear materials. We can make it clear that even as every nation has the right to peaceful nuclear energy, every nation must also meet its international obligations - and that includes the Islamic Republic of Iran. And together, we can pursue a vision that Indian leaders have espoused since Independence - a world without nuclear weapons.

This leads me to the final area where our countries can partner - strengthening the foundations of democratic governance, not only at home but abroad.

In the United States, my administration has worked to make government more open and transparent and accountable to the people. Here in India, you're harnessing technologies to do the same, as I saw yesterday,your landmark Right to Information Act is empowering citizens with the ability to get the services to which they're entitled and to hold officials accountable. Voters can get information about candidates by text message. And you're delivering education and health care services to rural communities, as I saw yesterday when I joined an e-panchayat with villagers in Rajasthan.

Now, in a new collaboration on open government, our two countries are going to share our experience, identify what works, and develop the next-generation of tools to empower citizens. And in another example of how American and Indian partnership can address global challenges, we're going to share these innovations with civil society groups and countries around the world. We're going to show that democracy, more than any other form of government, delivers for the common man - and woman.

Likewise, when Indians vote, the whole world watches. Thousands of political parties, hundreds of thousands of polling centers. Millions of candidates and poll workers, and 700 million voters. There's nothing like it on the planet. There is so much that countries transitioning to democracy could learn from India's experience; so much expertise that India could share with the world. That, too, is what's possible when the world's largest democracy embraces its role as a global leader.

As the world's two largest democracies, we must also never forget that the price of our own freedom is standing up for the freedom of others. Indians know this, for it is the story of your nation. Before he ever began his struggle for Indian independence, Gandhi stood up for the rights of Indians in South Africa. Just as others, including the United States, supported Indian Independence, India championed the self-determination of peoples from Africa to Asia as they too broke free from colonialism. And along with the United States, you've been a leader in supporting democratic development and civil society groups around the world. This, too, is part of India's greatness.

Every country will follow its own path. No one nation has a monopoly on wisdom, and no nation should ever try to impose its values on another. But when peaceful democratic movements are suppressed - as in Burma - then the democracies of the world cannot remain silent. For it is unacceptable to gun down peaceful protesters and incarcerate political prisoners’ decade after decade. It is unacceptable to hold the aspirations of an entire people hostage to the greed and paranoia of a bankrupt regime. It is unacceptable to steal an election, as the regime in Burma has done again for all the world to see.

Faced with such gross violations of human rights, it is the responsibility of the international community - especially leaders like the United States and India - to condemn it. If I can be frank, in international fora, India has often avoided these issues. But speaking up for those who cannot do so for themselves is not interfering in the affairs of other countries. It's not violating the rights of sovereign nations. It's staying true to our democratic principles. It's giving meaning to the human rights that we say are universal. And it sustains the progress that in Asia and around the world has helped turn dictatorships into democracies and ultimately increased our security in the world.

Promoting shared prosperity, preserving peace and security, strengthening democratic governance and human rights - these are the responsibilities of leadership. And, as global partners, this is the leadership that the United States and India can offer in the 21st century. Ultimately, however, this cannot be a relationship only between presidents and prime ministers, or in the halls of this Parliament. Ultimately, this must be a partnership between our peoples. So I want to conclude by speaking directly to the people of India watching today.

In your lives, you have overcome odds that might have overwhelmed a lesser country. In just decades, you have achieved progress and development that took other nations centuries. And now you are assuming your rightful place as a leader among nations. Your parents and grandparents imagined this. Your children and grandchildren will look back on this. But only you - this generation of Indians - can seize the possibility of this moment.

As you carry on with the hard work ahead, I want every Indian citizen to know: The United States of America will not simply be cheering you on from the sidelines. We will be right there with you, shoulder to shoulder. Because we believe in the promise of India. And we believe that the future is what we make it.

We believe that no matter who you are or where you come from, every person can fulfill their God-given potential, just as a Dalit like Dr. Ambedkar could lift himself up and pen the words of the Constitution that protects the rights of all Indians.

We believe that no matter where you live - whether a village in Punjab or the by lanes of Chandni Chowk...an old section of Kolkata or a new high-rise in Bangalore - every person deserves the same chance to live in security and dignity, to get an education, to find work, and to give their children a better future.

And we believe that when countries and cultures put aside old habits and attitudes that keep people apart, when we recognize our common humanity, then we can begin to fulfill the aspirations we share. It's a simple lesson contained in that collection of stories which has guided Indians for centuries - the Panchtantra. And it's the spirit of the inscription seen by all who enter this Great Hall: 'That one is mine and the other a stranger is the concept of little minds. But to the large-hearted, the world itself is their family."

This is the story of India; it's the story of America - that despite their differences, people can see themselves in one another, and work together and succeed together as one proud nation. And it can be the spirit of the partnership between our nations - that even as we honor the histories which in different times kept us apart, even as we preserve what makes us unique in a globalised world, we can recognize how much we can achieve together.

And if we let this simple concept be our guide, if we pursue the vision I have described today - a global partnership to meet global challenges - then I have no doubt that future generations - Indians and Americans - will live in a world that is more prosperous, more secure, and more just because of the bonds that our generation forged today.

Thank you, Jai Hind!, and long live the partnership between India and the United States.

2010-10-10T18:44:00.000+05:30

India

World Rank: 124Regional Rank: 24 of 41

TEN ECONOMIC FREEDOMS of India

36.3	Business Freedom	avg 64.6	35.0	Investment Freedom	avg 49.0
67.9	Trade Freedom	avg. 74.2	40.0	Financial Freedom	avg 48.5
73.4	Fiscal Freedom	avg. 75.4	50.0	Property Rights	avg 43.8
76.1	Government Spending	avg. 65.0	34.0	Fdm. from Corruption	avg 40.5
67.5	Monetary Freedom	avg. 70.6	57.7	Labor Freedom	avg 62.1

QUICK FACTS

Population:

§ 1.1 billion

GDP (PPP):

§ $3.4 trillion

§ 7.1% growth

§ 8.9% 5-year compound annual growth

§ $2,972 per capita

Unemployment:

§ 6.8%

Inflation (CPI):

§ 8.3%

FDI Inflow:

§ $41.6 billion

India’s economic freedom score is 53.8, making its economy the 124th freest in the 2010 Index. Its score is 0.6 point lower than last year as a result of declines in freedom from corruption, business freedom, and monetary freedom. India is ranked 24th out of 41 countries in the Asia–Pacific region, and its overall score is below the world average.

India continues to move forward with market-oriented economic reforms and has achieved average growth of about 9 percent over the past five years. The economy has been driven by information technology and other business process sectors. Despite sluggish progress in reducing onerous non-tariff barriers, the trade regime has gradually become more open, with its average tariff rate decreasing.

The state still plays a major role in over 200 public-sector enterprises. Public debt is 80 percent of GDP, leaving little fiscal room to react to the global downturn. India’s overly restrictive regulatory environment does not facilitate entrepreneurship or realization of the economy’s full potential. Corruption is pervasive, and the judicial system remains inefficient and clogged by a large backlog of cases. Labor freedom is especially weak, with rigid regulations a costly impediment to further economic growth and job creation.

BACKGROUNDBACK TO THE TOP

India is the world’s most populous democracy and one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies. Its 1991 “big bang” liberalization ended decades of cumbersome regulations and protectionism, and the economy has since grown rapidly, first in services and more recently in manufacturing. The Congress Party government was re-elected to another five-year term in May 2009 on a populist platform that included a social welfare scheme that guarantees employment for rural households. Though over 80 percent of the population is Hindu, the country has one of the world’s largest Muslim populations. Conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir, which has simmered since independence and twice boiled over into war, continues unresolved.

BUSINESS FREEDOM36.3BACK TO THE TOP

The overall freedom to start, operate, and close a business remains restricted by India’s regulatory environment. Starting a business takes an average of 30 days, compared to the world average of 35 days. Obtaining a business license requires more than the world average of 18 procedures and 218 days.

TRADE FREEDOM67.9BACK TO THE TOP

India’s weighted average tariff rate was 6 percent in 2008. Large differences between bound and applied tariff rates, import and export restrictions, services market access restrictions, import taxes and fees, complex and non-transparent regulation, onerous standards and certifications, discriminatory sanitary and phytosanitary measures, restrictive import licensing, domestic bias in government procurement, problematic enforcement of intellectual property rights, export subsidies, inadequate infrastructure, and complex and non-transparent customs add to the cost of trade. Twenty points were deducted from India’s trade freedom score to account for non-tariff barriers.

FISCAL FREEDOM73.4BACK TO THE TOP

India’s tax rates are relatively high. The top income and corporate tax rates are 33.99 percent (30 percent plus a 10 percent surcharge and a 3 percent education tax on that total). Other taxes include a dividend distribution tax, a tax on interest, and a value-added tax (VAT). In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 18.8 percent.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING76.1BACK TO THE TOP

Total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, are relatively low. In the most recent year, government spending equaled 28.2 percent of GDP.

MONETARY FREEDOM67.5BACK TO THE TOP

Inflation has been relatively high, averaging 7.7 percent between 2006 and 2008. The government subsidizes agricultural, gas, and kerosene production; applies factory, wholesale, and retail price controls on “essential” commodities, 25 crops, services, electricity, water, some petroleum products, and certain types of coal; and controls the prices of 74 bulk drugs that cover 40 percent of the market. Another 354 drugs are to be brought under controls by a new pharmaceutical policy. Domestic price and marketing arrangements apply to commodities like sugar and certain cereals. Fifteen points were deducted from India’s monetary freedom score to account for policies that distort domestic prices.

INVESTMENT FREEDOM35.0BACK TO THE TOP

Foreign investors generally receive national treatment. If licensing is required, procedures do not discriminate against foreign companies; however, in certain consumer-goods industries, export obligations and local content requirements are imposed. Foreign investment is prohibited in multi-brand retailing, legal services, security services, nuclear energy, and railways. Foreign investment in real estate is limited to company property used to do business and the development of some types of new commercial and residential properties. Bureaucracy is non-transparent and burdensome, and contract enforcement can be difficult. Foreign exchange, capital transactions, and some credit operations are subject to approvals, restrictions, and additional requirements.

FINANCIAL FREEDOM40.0BACK TO THE TOP

Liberalization and modernization have allowed more private banks to compete, but state-owned institutions continue to dominate the banking sector and capital markets. Currently, 28 state-owned banks control about 70 percent of commercial banking assets. Access to financial services varies sharply around the country. High credit costs and scarce access to financing still impede private-sector development. Foreign banks account for less than 10 percent of total assets. Foreign banks operating in India may not directly or indirectly retain more than a 5 percent equity stake in a domestic private bank. Insurance is partially liberalized. Capital markets have been developing but remain illiquid, with foreign participation limited.

PROPERTY RIGHTS50.0BACK TO THE TOP

The legal system imposes a number of restrictions on the transfer of land, and titling problems can make buying and selling difficult. There is no reliable system for recording secured interests in property. Because of large backlogs, courts take years to reach decisions, and foreign corporations often resort to international arbitration. Protection of intellectual property rights is problematic. Proprietary test results and other data about patented products submitted to the government by foreign pharmaceutical companies have been used by domestic companies without any legal penalties.

FREEDOM FROM CORRUPTION34.0BACK TO THE TOP

Corruption is perceived as significant. India ranks 85th out of 179 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2008. Corruption remains a major concern, especially in government procurement of telecommunications, power, and defense contracts.

LABOR FREEDOM57.7BACK TO THE TOP

India’s informal economy remains an important source of employment. The non-salary cost of employing a worker is moderate, but dismissing an employee is costly.

Legislator's Salary

2010-09-22T17:26:00.000+05:30

Compiled By: PRS

Parliament passed the ‘Salary, Allowances and Pensions of MPs’ Bill on the last day of its sitting during the Monsoon session this year. With this, the base salary of an MP has increased from Rs 16,000 to Rs 50,000 per month. This has been accompanied with increments in allowances and pension.

Before the hike, the salary of an Indian MP was comparable to that of a government employee in the lowest band. Even after the hike, his salary remains lower than that of several key government officials. National legislators of many other democracies also earn more than Indian MPs.

The law raises an MP’s base salary to Rs.50,000 per month

Table: Salaries, Allowances and Pension of MPs

Major heads	Unit	Before hike	After hike
Base salary	per month	Rs.16,000	Rs.50,000
Pension	per month	Rs.8,000	Rs.20,000
Daily allowance (session days only)	per day	Rs.1,000	Rs.2,000
Constituency allowance	per month	Rs.20,000	Rs.45,000
Office expenses allowance	per month	Rs.20,000	Rs.45,000

Source: The Salary, Allowances and Pensions of Members of Parliament (Amendment) Act, 2010 and Minister’s Statement in Rajya Sabha (31st August, 2010)

An MP is now paid a base salary of Rs.50,000 per month and is entitled to a pension of Rs.20,000 per month. If an MP serves as a member for a period exceeding five years, this pension increases by Rs.1,500 for each additional year of service.
In addition, MPs are compensated for official expenses through various allowances – daily allowance of Rs.2,000 for each day of attending Parliament, constituency allowance for expenses incurred in the constituency (Rs.45,000 per month) and office expenses for staff, stationery and postage (Rs.45,000 per month).
MPs are provided accommodation in Delhi, which varies from hostel rooms to two-bedroom flats to bungalows. They are also reimbursed for electricity, water, telephone, and internet expenses, and also for 34 one-way air tickets from their constituency to Delhi.

Despite the hike, MPs in India are paid lower than in many other democracies

Source: Salary data (Country websites); PPPs (Global Report 2005, International Comparison Program, World Bank)

Note: This does not include allowances

Salaries of National Legislators across countries, when adjusted for the relative cost of living, provide a useful metric for comparison. The adjustment is done using the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) which takes into account the relative prices of products in each country.
On PPP-adjusted terms, Indian MPs earn about 25% of their counterparts in the US. In fact, most advanced democracies pay their national legislators an amount significantly higher than India.
Parliaments in these advanced democracies also provide higher level of support to their legislators. For instance, the allowances accorded for hiring support staff. Whereas an Indian MP gets an allowance of Rs.28,000 per month (as part of office expenses) for hiring assistants, his counterpart, the US Congressman gets $70,000 per month and can hire up to 18 permanent employees.

MP salaries in India are still lower than those of several key government officials

Note: This does not include allowances

Source: Sixth Pay Commission; Acts of Parliament

It is interesting to note that Indian MPs are paid lower than a Secretary to the Government of India, even though they outrank them in the order of precedence.
During the debate in Parliament, several MPs recommended that their salaries be pegged at one rupee more than the salary of the Secretary to the Government of India. This would also result in automatic revision with each Pay Commission award.

Is establishing an independent salaries commission a solution?

Table: Methods for setting salaries

Country	Process of determining salary
India	Decided by Parliament
Australia	Remuneration Tribunal
Canada	Commission to review MPs’ pay; salary pegged to annual wage rate index
France	MP pay linked to that of civil servants
Germany	Decided by parliament (Bundestag)
New Zealand	Remuneration Authority
UK	Parliament votes upon recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Board
US	Decided by parliament (Congress)

Source: Country websites

In India, MP salaries are decided by the MPs themselves. This gives rise to the question of conflict of interest. The US Congress and the German Bundestag also follow a similar process.
There are two alternative approaches seen in other democracies - Some appoint an independent authority (e.g. New Zealand); others peg the salary to that of public officials (Canada).
These structural issues were a major theme of the discussion in Lok Sabha on the 27^th of August. Several MPs suggested that the government work towards changing the existing procedure and establish an independent commission for determining salaries.

Shaffi Mather: A new way to fight corruption | Video on TED.com

2010-08-22T18:33:00.000+05:30

Shaffi Mather: A new way to fight corruption | Video on TED.com

The Ideas of India

2010-08-15T19:27:00.001+05:30

The Ideas of India

Another Independence Day is upon us. As we celebrate our 63rd birthday, it is again time to reflect on what kind of country we are. India, I have long argued, is more than the sum of its contradictions. It is a country held together, in the words of Nehru, “by strong but invisible threads ... a myth and an idea, a dream and a vision, and yet very real and present and pervasive”. That nebulous quality is what the analyst of Indian nationalism is ultimately left with; to borrow a phrase from Amartya Sen, it is an idea — the idea of India. But what is that idea? Jawaharlal Nehru articulated it as pluralism vindicated by history, seeing the country as an “ancient palimpsest” on which successive rulers and subjects had inscribed their visions without erasing what had been asserted previously. A generation of secular nationalists echoed him, making “unity in diversity” the most hallowed of independent India’s self-defining slogans.

How did India preserve and protect a viable idea of itself in the course of the last 63 years, while it grew from 370 million people to 1.2 billion, reorganised its State structures, and sought to defend itself from internal and external dangers, all the while remaining democratic? I have tried to answer this question at length in my books.

Certainly the accomplishment is extraordinary, and worthy of celebration. Amid India’s myriad problems, it is democracy that has given Indians of every imaginable caste, creed, culture, and cause the chance to break free of their lot.

There is social oppression and caste tyranny, particularly in rural India, but Indian democracy offers the victims a means of escape, and often — thanks to the determination with which the poor and oppressed exercise their franchise — of triumph. The significant changes in the social composition of India’s ruling class since Independence, both in politics and in the bureaucracy, are proof of democracy at work, but the poor quality of our country’s politics in general offers less cause for celebration.

In the six-plus decades since Independence, democracy has failed to create a single political community. Instead, we have become more conscious than ever of what divides us: religion, region, caste, language, ethnicity. The political system has become looser and more fragmented. Politicians mobilise support along ever-narrower lines of political identity. It has become more important to be a “backward caste”, a “tribal”, or a religious sectarian than to be an Indian; and of course, to some it is more important to be a “proud” Hindu than to be an Indian. This is particularly ironic because one of the early strengths of Nehruvian India — the survival of the nationalist movement as a political party, the Congress Party serving as an all-embracing, all-inclusive agglomeration of the major political tendencies in the country — stifled the normal process of contention over political principle. With the emergence and growth of other political forces, politicians have been tempted to organise themselves around identities other than party (or to create parties to reflect a specific identity).

Caste, which Nehru and his ilk abhorred and believed would disappear from the social matrix of modern India, has not merely survived and thrived, but has become an instrument for highly effective political mobilisation. Candidates are picked by their parties with an eye toward the caste loyalties they can call upon; often their appeal is overtly to voters of their own caste or sub-caste, urging them to elect one of their own. The result has been the growth of caste-consciousness and casteism throughout society. In many States, caste determines educational opportunities, job prospects, and governmental promotions; all too often, people say you cannot go forward unless you're a “backward”.

Ironically, a distinctive feature of the Nehruvian legacy was its visionary rejection of India’s assorted bigotries and particularisms. The Nehrus were, by upbringing and conviction, completely secular. Not only did Indira Gandhi marry a Parsi, but her daughters-in-law were an Italian Christian and a Punjabi Sikh. The one strand of political opinion Nehru and his offspring abhorred was that of Hindu religious revivalism. All four generations of Nehrus in public life remained secular in outlook and conduct. Their appeal transcended caste, region, language, and religion, something impossible to say of any other leading Indian politician.

Whether through elections or quotas, political mobilisation in contemporary India has asserted the power of old identities, habits, faiths, and prejudices. Transcending them will be the major challenge for the Indian polity in the 21st century.

What makes India, then, a nation? As the country celebrates the 63rd anniversary of its independence today, we may well ask: What is an Indian's identity?

When an Italian nation was created in the second half of the 19th century out of a mosaic of principalities and statelets, one Italian nationalist wrote: “We have created Italy. Now all we need to do is to create Italians.” It is striking that, a few decades later, no Indian nationalist succumbed to the temptation to express a similar thought. The prime exponent of modern Indian nationalism, Nehru, would never have spoken of “creating Indians,” because he believed that India and Indians had existed for millennia before he articulated their political aspirations in the 20th century.

Nonetheless, the India that was born in 1947 was in a very real sense a new creation: a state that made fellow citizens of the Ladakhi and the Laccadivian, divided Punjabi from Punjabi and asked a Keralite peasant to feel allegiance to a Kashmiri Pandit ruling in Delhi, all for the first time.

So Indian nationalism was not based on any of the conventional indices of national identity. Not language, since our constitution now recognises 23 official languages, and as many as 35 languages spoken by more than a million people each. Not ethnicity, since the “Indian” accommodates a diversity of racial types in which many Indians (Punjabis and Bengalis, in particular) have more ethnically in common with foreigners than with their other compatriots. Not religion, since India is a secular pluralist state that is home to every religion known to mankind, with the possible exception of Shintoism. Not geography, since the natural geography of the subcontinent — framed by the mountains and the sea — was hacked by the partition of 1947. And not even territory, since, by law, anyone with one grandparent born in pre-partition India — outside the territorial boundaries of today’s state — is eligible for citizenship. Indian nationalism has therefore always been the nationalism of an idea.

It is the idea of an ever-ever land - emerging from an ancient civilisation, united by a shared history, sustained by pluralist democracy. India’s democracy imposes no narrow conformities on its citizens.

The whole point of Indian pluralism is you can be many things and one thing: you can be a good Muslim, a good Keralite and a good Indian all at once. The Indian idea is the opposite of what Freudians call “the narcissism of minor differences”; in India we celebrate the commonality of major differences. If America is famously a “melting-pot”, then to me India is a thali, a selection of sumptuous dishes in different bowls. Each tastes different, and does not necessarily mix with the next, but they belong together on the same plate, and they complement each other in making the meal a satisfying repast.

So the idea of India is of one land embracing many. Geography helps, because it accustoms Indians to the idea of difference.

The Indian idea is that a nation may endure differences of caste, creed, colour, conviction, culture, cuisine, costume and custom, and still rally around a consensus. And that consensus is around the simple idea that in a democracy you don’t really need to agree — except on the ground rules of how you will disagree.

India’s founding fathers wrote a constitution for their dreams; we have given passports to their ideals. Today these ideals are contested by stone-throwing young men in the streets of Srinagar and rifle-wielding Maoists in the forests of Chhattisgarh. We must remain faithful to our founding values of the 20th century if we are to conquer the 21st.

Shashi Tharoor is a member of Parliament from Thiruvanthapuram

India: Police Organisation in Different States

2010-07-27T07:49:00.000+05:30

India: Police Organisation in Different States

As on December 31, 2008

State/UT	Area(In Sqr. Kms.)	Actual Police Strength				No. Of Police-men Per 100 Sqr. Kms. Of Area	No. Of Policemen Per 1,00,000 Of Population	Total Police Expenditure (Rs. In Crores)@@	Unit Cost Per Police-men (Per Annum)
State/UT	Area(In Sqr. Kms.)	Civil		Armed	Total	No. Of Police-men Per 100 Sqr. Kms. Of Area	No. Of Policemen Per 1,00,000 Of Population	Total Police Expenditure (Rs. In Crores)@@	Unit Cost Per Police-men (Per Annum)
ANDHRA PRADESH	275045	66463	14801		81264	29.5	99	1450.86	178537
ARUNCAHL PRADESH	83743	3436	3841		7277	8.7	604	123.13	169204
ASSAM	78438	27900	23829		51729	65.9	172	752.06	145385
BIHAR	94163	47416	12675		60091	63.8	64	897.80	149407
CHHATISGARH	135191	17392	16969		34361	25.4	145	468.00	136201
GOA	3702	3962	665		4627	125	281	93.39	201837
GUJARAT	196024	45703	12463		58166	29.7	103	986.81	169654
HARYANA	44212	36460	6108		42568	96.3	178	772.76	181535
HIMACHAL PRADESH	55673	9776	3270		13046	23.4	199	248.01	190104
JAMMU & KASHMIR	101387	39035	24733		63768	62.9	510	1109.37	173970
JHARKHAND	79714	41084	10744		51828	65	172	501.97	96853
KARNATAKA	191791	65662	9675		75337	39.3	131	1332.29	176844
KERALA	38863	36742	4313		41055	105.6	120	817.49	199121
MADHYA PRADESH	308245	55493	21333		76826	24.9	110	1017.26	132411
MAHARASHTRA	307713	152211	14155		166366	54.1	155	3237.79	194618
MANIPUR	22327	5502	10656		16158	72.4	613	307.74	190457
MEGHALAYA	22429	6011	4255		10266	45.8	403	148.00	144165
MIZORAM	21081	3535	6345		9880	46.9	1004	150.90	152733
NAGALAND	16579	5791	4652		10443	63	476	388.39	371914
ORISSA	155707	27922	12454		40376	25.9	101	596.26	147677
PUNJAB*	50362	48214	19041		67255	133.5	252	1462.24	217417
RAJASTHAN	342239	61049	11722		72771	21.3	112	1002.60	137775
SIKKIM	7096	1984	1617		3601	50.7	604	76.62	212774
TAMIL NADU	130058	74483	15249		89732	69	135	2190.98	244169
TRIPURA	10486	9450	13093		22543	215	640	349.35	154971
UTTAR PRADESH	240928	107840	30605		138445	57.5	72	3506.15	253252
UTTARAKHAND	53483	11328	3477		14805	27.7	155	330.87	223485
WEST BENGAL	88752	59375	19343		78718	88.7	89	1087.00	138088
TOTAL(STATES)	3155431	1071219	332083		1403302	44.5	124	25406.09	181045
UNION TERRITORIES:
A & N ISLANDS	8249	2195	568		2763	33.5	666	83.93	303764
CHANDIGARH	114	3644	419		4063	3564	379	92.11	226704
D & N HAVELI	491	213	0		213	43.4	80	4.90	230047
DAMAN & DIU	112	220	0		220	196.4	116	4.45	202273
DELHI	1483	52834	7610		60444	4075.8	350	1516.30	250860
LAKSHADWEEP	32	308	0		308	962.5	446	5.96	193506
PUDUCHERRY	492	1569	713		2282	463.8	211	57.60	252410
TOTAL(UTs)	10973	60983	9310		70293	640.6	346	1765.25	251127
TOTAL(ALL-INIDA)	3166404	1132202	341393		1473595	46.5	128	27171.34	184388

Accountability Initiative, India

2010-07-10T17:52:00.002+05:30

What We Do

(http://www.accountabilityindia.in)

Specifically, the initiative aims to:

Undertake policy research on the mechanisms of accountability in India’s governance institutions
Develop new areas and innovations to enhance accountability
Support the creation of better quality data on basic public services
Seek innovative ways to disseminate this data to the public
Encourage an informed, evidence-based debate on accountability and improved service delivery outcomes in India

The Initiative’s work is primarily collaborative in nature. It seeks to strengthen current accountability efforts by the government, civil society, research institutes and the media.

Research

The primary objective of the initiative’s research work is to encourage regular dialogue with policy makers and key civil society actors on accountability and governance reforms.

Key activities include:

Analyzing the institutional design for the delivery of key public services
Developing policy recommendations
Analyzing and assessing the changing nature of accountability relationships and the role of civil society
Collecting, documenting and analyzing current approaches, experiments and instruments that attempt to strengthen accountability

Projects

The Accountability Initiative seeks to strengthen efforts to create regular, reliable and relevant information on the processes and quality of public services.

Key activities include:

Innovating with accountability tools to develop new mechanisms for generating information on service quality
Disseminating data emerging from these innovations to local communities through local media including the mobile phone and internet
Understanding the effectiveness of accountability tools by collecting and documenting experiences
Developing ‘how to’ tool kits that will serve as practical guides for other organizations interested in conducting similar work

Union Budget 2010-2011

2010-04-05T05:10:00.001+05:30

Parliamentary Committees

2010-04-01T10:51:00.003+05:30

Parliamentary Committees

These Committees are constituted to effectively monitor the functioning of the various ministries. There are 24 Departmentally Related Standing Committees - 16 under the Lok Sabha and 8 under the Rajya Sabha. Each Standing Committee consists of 31 members - 21 from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha.

Some of the main functions of Standing Committees include:- Examination of the Demands for Grants for the respective ministries and present a report to Parliament.- Examination of Bills pertaining to the ministries or related Departments that are referred by Chairperson (for Rajya Sabha) or the Speaker (for the Lok Sabha) and present a report to Parliament.

Committees under Lok Sabha
1. Agriculture (Chairperson: Basudeb Acharia)
2. Chemicals & Fertilizers (Chairperson: Ananth Kumar)
3. Coal & Steel (Chairperson: Kalyan Banerjee)
4. Defence (Chairperson: Satpal Maharaj)
5. Energy (Chairperson: Mulayam Singh Yadav)
6. External Affairs (Chairperson: Yashwant Sinha)
7. Finance (Chairperson: Murli Manohar Joshi)
8. Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (Chairperson: Vilas Baburao Muttemwar)
9. Information Technology (Chairperson: Inderjit Singh Rao)
10. Labour (Chairperson: Hemanand Biswal)
11. Petroleum & Natural Gas (Chairperson: Aruna Kumar Vundavalli)
12. Railways (Chairperson: T. R. Baalu)
13. Rural Development (Chairperson: Sumitra Mahajan)
14. Social Justice & Empowerment (Chairperson: Dara Singh Chauhan)
15. Urban Development (Chairperson: Sharad Yadav)
16. Water Resources (Chairperson: Beni Prasad Verma)

Committees under Rajya Sabha
1. Commerce (Chairperson: Shanta Kumar)
2. Health & Family Welfare (Chairperson: Amar Singh)
3. Home Affairs (Chairperson: M. Venkaiah Naidu)
4. Human Resource Development (Chairperson: Oscar Fernandes)
5. Industry (Chairperson: Akhilesh Das Gupta)
6. Personnel, Public Grievances, Law & Justice (Chairperson: Jayanthi Natarajan)
7. Science & Technology, Environment & Forests (Chairperson: T. Subbarami Reddy)
8. Transport, Tourism & Culture (Chairperson: Sitaram Yechury)

Gujarat: Copybook Expansion

2010-03-30T02:35:00.002+05:30

Ajai Sahni -Editor, SAIR; Executive Director, Institute for Conflict Management.

Sachin Bansidhar Diwan - Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management .

Six years ago, the erstwhile People’s War Group’s (which later merged to form the Communist Party of India – Maoist, CPI-Maoist) ‘Urban Perspective’ document (‘Our Work in Urban Areas’) promised to focus on, among others, the Ahmedabad-Pune corridor, noting,

This stretch of Western India is the main concentration of high industrialisation and urbanisation in the country. It includes four of the top ten cities in the country – Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Pune and Surat – besides two other cities over ten lakh – Vadodara and Nashik. The industries cover almost all the main industrial groups – engineering, chemicals, textiles, automobiles, telecommunications, electronics, etc. These cities and the adjoining districts attract the largest amount of new investment in the whole country. The working class is the most diverse, having migrated from all parts of the country.

Recognizing that rural areas would "play a primary role" in the "armed struggle" the Urban Perspective stated, nevertheless, Without a strong urban revolutionary movement, the ongoing people’s war faces difficulties; further, without the participation of the urban masses it is impossible to achieve countrywide victory.

And further,
The ceaseless attacks of the imperialists and their Indian agents are daily pushing the national bourgeoisie into more conflict with the ruling classes. Thus today the practical possibilities of unity from below are growing. These possibilities are greater in cities with a stronger national bourgeois presence like the Delhi belt, the Coimbatore-Erode belt in Tamil Nadu, Surat in Gujarat, etc. Local party organisations should, where possible, utilise such opportunities, while keeping in mind the above principles.

Gujarat would seem an unlikely location for a Maoist mobilisation, on conventional reasoning. With just 4.4 per cent of the country’s population, the State accounts for 17 per cent of its GDP, 16 per cent of national exports, and 39 per cent of the national industrial output. While the world teetered on the brink of recession, and while the Indian economy slowed down significantly, Gujarat grew at 12.99 per cent in 2009-2010, and has averaged 12 per cent over the past decade. According to official calculations, just 16.75 per cent of the population is below the poverty line, as against a national average of 27.5 per cent. When the Tata’s Nano project at Singur in West Bengal ran into trouble over land acquisition and displacement, it shifted to Gujarat. This is the State most preferred by industry, and, according to the Reserve Bank of India, accounted for 26 per cent of total bank finance in the country in 2006-07.

Surat is a notable part of this success story: the State’s fastest growing city accounts for 92 per cent of the world’s diamond cutting and polishing industry. It has been called the ‘Manchester of the East’, accounting for 28 per cent of India’s total synthetic fiber output, and 40 per cent of the country’s man made fabric production.

None of this, however, has deterred the Maoists from targeting this flourishing State to realize their strategy of bringing the ‘Ahmedabad-Pune corridor’ into their sphere of influence.

On March 16, 2010 the Surat Police arrested a former freelance journalist of Orissa, Niranjan Mahapatra, from Pandesara in the Surat District for his alleged involvement in Maoist movement in Surat city, as well as in different tribal areas of South Gujarat. Sources indicate that he had been working among the tribals in South Gujarat since 1996, though had shifted base to Surat for the past five years. Police investigations revealed that he had sought to mobilize the dam evacuees of Ukai, living in Tapi, Surat and Dang Districts. The Police claimed to have recovered several incriminating documents from his rented accommodation at Jagannath Nagar.

Subseqeuntly, on March 19, 2010, N. K. Singh, a suspected cadre of the Communist Party of India-Marxist-Leninist-Janshakti (CPI-ML-Janshakti) was arrested from the Alang ship-breaking yard in the Bhavnagar District of the Saurashtra region where he was running a labour union. He hailed from Begusarai in Bihar. The Police had extracted his mobile phone number from Niranjan Mahapatra.

Prior to these incidents, the Gujarat Police, on February 26, 2010, filed a comprehensive First Information Report (FIR) against the CPI-Maoist in Surat, to investigate the organisation’s activities and identify the persons involved in its spread in the State. The complaint confirmed that the Maoists were trying to extend their networks in the State, particularly in the tribal regions of South Gujarat. An offence under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has been registered. Explaining the circumstances of filing of the FIR Inspector General of Police (Surat Range) A. K. Singh stated on February 27, 2010.

We have analysed the source materials and believe that their activities in South Gujarat are in continuation with their activities in the other Naxal [Left Wing Extremism]-affected States of the country. This is the first comprehensive FIR registered against them that will give legal power to the Police to investigate and find out the spread of CPI-Maoist in South Gujarat. Earlier, only minor complaints were filed against them. It is a banned organisation and we need to track their every movement.

Earlier, on April 10, 2009, five CPI-Maoist cadres belonging to the Narayanpur District of Chhattisgarh were arrested by a joint team of the Chhattisgarh Police and Gujarat Police from the Hazira industrial area of Surat. The Maoists were identified as Arjun Ramlal Yadav, Surajlal Rupjiram Gond, Jankuram alias Dholuram Virsing Gond, Chandu alias Chanda Bavanji Gond and Sonmati Rasiya Gond.

According to senior Police officials, the Maoists, including two women, were acting as a sleeper cell and used Surat and Hazira as a hiding place after carrying out attacks in Chhattisgarh. They were working as labourers in a construction company and living in the staff quarters near Singotar Mata Temple. The operation was planned after Police from the Dhantri District of Chhattisgarh received a tip-off that the extremists were hiding in Surat. The Surat Deputy Commissioner of Police, Subhash Trivedi, disclosed that the group used to visit Chhattisgarh frequently: "They used to return to Surat, either after carrying out attacks, or when any member fell ill."

Many of the details of the Maoist gameplan were revealed during interrogation of Surya Devra Prabhakar, believed to be in charge of the Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh Maoist operations, who was arrested by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) from Mumbai (Maharashtra) on January 18, 2010. Prabhakar was responsible for drafting policies to recruit ‘young blood’ into the movement, and stayed in Surat between 2000 and 2006, before shifting to Mumbai. He, however, continued to visit Surat frequently. He was active in the tribal belt of South Gujarat and had established contacts with power loom and diamond industry workers. The ATS recovered INR One million from Prabhakar, believed to be a portion of the INR 2.5 million collected by him from Surat. The ATS also recovered a computer CPU, a pen drive, a mobile phone and Maoist literatures. More importantly, Prabhakar revealed that the plan to make the stretch from Ahmedabad to Mumbai a ‘Red Corridor’ was brewed almost 10 years earlier, and Surat was chosen as the operational Headquarters because of its huge migrant population from Maoist affected States like Orissa, Maharashtra, Bihar and Chhattisgarh. In addition, another two major cities Vadodara (Gujarat) and Nashik (Maharashtra) – lie in the targeted corridor, each with million-plus populations. The entire targeted region boasts a diversified industrial presence and is home to a wide varied range of the working class populations, with a significant representation of migrant workers from Maoist afflicted States.

Gujarat is also being developed as a ‘breeding ground’ for Maoists from other, more troubled, States. Gujarat Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Sudhir Sinha, on March 22, 2010, revealed that the Maoists were using Gujarat to recruit potential cadres from the large migrant population, especially in Surat, and collect funds for their movement: "CPI-Maoist cadres are brainwashing potential migrant recruits and are sending them back to the State of their origin to work there," Sinha said.

For all their efforts, the Maoist consolidation in Gujarat, and in the targeted Ahmedabad-Pune corridor, is still in its infancy. There has been no violence in the State. Crucially, the Gujarat Administration and Police have far better capacities for governance than most of the regions afflicted by the Left Wing insurgency. The overall level of policing is better in this region than in the States worst affected by Maoist mobilisation. The Police-Population ratio [number of Policemen per 1, 00,000 of Population] in Gujarat is 131, and in Maharashtra, 141, both higher than the national average of 125 (though well below ratios internationally regarded as adequate even for peacetime policing).

There is, nevertheless, an evident residual potential for extremist mobilisation, and this has been clearly demonstrated by Hindu right wing mobilisation in the State, and by the brutality of the Gujarat riots in 2002. There is a vast pool of grievances which extremists, both of the Right and of the Left, can harness. A sizeable population has been displaced as a result of development projects such as dams, highways, Special Economic Zones (SEZs), mining, etc., across the targeted region. Significantly, there is a large migrant worker population from Maoist affected States like Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh. The gulf between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ is considerable.

The Maoists are clearly aware that existing and evolving developmental friction and the inequities and inequalities of the emerging order can translate excellent opportunities for mobilisation in their favour. The Maoist intent is to "mobilize the broadest possible sections", and such an objective is not pursued only through mobilisation of armed cadres, but would also "utilise all possible open and legal opportunities for work", building "broad mass organisations" to help the Party "have wide contact with the masses, so that it can work under cover for a long time and accumulate strength". At the same time, a secret underground structure for violent action is being developed, within a long-term ‘protracted war’ framework. The Maoist network, consequently, comprises both ‘secret’ and ‘open revolutionary mass organisations’. A range of ‘legal and democratic’ fronts join hands with a United Front that establishes linkages with ‘like-minded organisations’ to take the movement forward.

The Maoist strategy is insidious, deeply corrosive, and is rarely confronted by the State in its initial, non-violent phases. Indeed, the record in most badly affected States has been one of denial even after significant Maoist violence has been initiated. Nipping the budding Maoist mobilisation will, of course, present the Gujarat Police with a range of legal challenges within the Indian system. It is, nevertheless, the most efficient and humane method to prevent the transition to a more violent phase, which would then require even greater use of Force to suppress. The State Police has done well to initiate a vigorous response at the present, incipient stage of the Maoist movement in Gujarat. India can ill-afford another ‘Red Corridor’, this time, across its flourishing Western belt.

PM Manmohan Singh @ First Annual Conference of Chief Secretaries

2010-02-02T01:45:00.000+05:30

The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh addressed the First Annual Conference of Chief Secretaries in New Delhi today. Speaking on the occasion, Prime Minister called for better administrative coordination between the States and the Centre for faster development of the country. Following is the text of the Prime Minister’s address on the occasion:

“I am happy to be here today for the inauguration of this first annual conference of Chief Secretaries of States. I greet and welcome each one of you. I hope that in the time to come this annual conference will become a forum for useful and productive exchange of views between the Centre and the States. I compliment the Cabinet Secretary for taking the initiative of proposing this conference.

We are meeting at the beginning of a new decade. Economic reforms over the last twenty years have enabled us to become one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Not only this, we also have the resilience to deal and meet the challenge of crises, as our response to the recent global downturn shows. We are now more capable than ever before in fighting persistent poverty, hunger and disease, and providing a better quality of life to our people. We also now live in a globalised environment where the Indian economy is increasingly getting integrated with the international economy, and Indian talent and enterprise is recognized the world over.

While there is unprecedented optimism in the country about our prospects for the future, there are also new challenges that we as administrators face. Governance today has become an extremely complex process. The rising expectations of the people make them impatient with the speed at which we can deliver results. People today resent apathy, sloth, and corruption in any form and at any level of government more than ever before. There is clamour for accountability from all quarters – the legislature, the judiciary and the media. Greater connectivity and greater integration of States in the national economy imply that what happens in one State has an impact on other States. There are problems which require a response which is coordinated not only between the affected States but also between the Centre and the States.

All this requires that our response to problems and crises has to be much more creative and imaginative than ever before. It also requires that everyone in the administrative system is well informed, well trained and well equipped to tackle the tasks before him or her; to think not only of what we face today but what is likely to be encountered in the years ahead. It is only when the administrative apparatus is innovative, flexible and quick that it can match the demanding test of our times.

It is in this background that this Conference is so important. You hold a pivotal position in the State administration. It is incumbent upon you to ensure that the administrative apparatus is geared to match the challenges it faces. I expect that the deliberations in this conference will give you a better appreciation of the background in which the Central government takes policy decisions. I also expect that they will help you to find ways of responding in a coordinated manner in tackling problems which involve more than one State. This, in turn, will enable you to offer a more nuanced and considered advice to your own government.

As you are all well aware, inclusive growth is the centre-piece of our development process. Fast economic growth has little meaning if it does not lead to the well being of the poor and the disadvantaged, of our farmers, workers, our children, students and women. The benefits of the development process have to percolate to every part of our country and to every section of our society if we want to progress in the true sense of the term and be a strong and cohesive nation. The Central Government has attached the highest importance to our growth being inclusive in nature. But India lives in States. Unless the States move ahead and move forward at a pace that is adequate to the challenges that we face, I think we cannot claim that we have delivered inclusive growth. The inclusive growth that we talk about is reflected in the launching of schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Programme, the National Rural Health Mission, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, the New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities and Bharat Nirman programme designed to upgrade the quality of rural social and physical infrastructure. All these programmes require the active participation and commitment of the State Governments. It falls upon you to ensure that these programmes are implemented in the spirit in which they have been conceived, that road blocks on the way are cleared rapidly and with commitment, that leakages are plugged and the people get what is intended for them in the quickest and the most efficient manner. There is a need for strengthening the Panchayati Raj Institutions as a means for an effective decentralized planning system for inclusive growth. All this constitutes a huge task that requires dedication, commitment and persistence. I would like to add here that the Central government does recognize that there is always room for improvement in these schemes and programmes. Planning from below is as important as thinking integrally of the needs of the nation as a whole. We would welcome any suggestions that you may have regarding the design and implementation of the programmes that have been launched by the Central Government.

It is one of the primary responsibilities of any government to ensure the rule of law. In addition, an atmosphere of peace and communal harmony is also a pre-requisite for rapid economic growth. The law and order machinery has to be sensitized to the key security concerns that affect us. Terrorism, insurgency and extremism need to be tackled with a firm but effective and sensitive hand. You have to be aware not only of local and regional happenings but also of pan-India and trans-border developments. It is my hope that this conference will help you in getting a better perspective on some of these issues.

Our experience in the past two years has brought to the fore the importance of food security and the need for containing prices. For some time past, there was, if I may say so, a false sense of security that availability of food has ceased to be a concern. Similarly, many felt that we have been able to control prices. But we have learnt that our growing population and higher levels of living necessitate augmentation of our food supplies. In this context, I would urge the State governments to focus their energy on the area of increasing agricultural productivity. Our agricultural productivity still ranks far below the best in the world. There is great scope for improvement in the productivity of our major crops and I hope to see greater efforts in achieving this. I would also suggest that the States must undertake to place some of their best and committed officers as agricultural production commissioners given the importance of agriculture in our economy. I notice that in recent years, this job has lost its attractiveness and not the best persons are being appointed to man the position of agricultural production commissioners in the States. We must also recognise that in a globalized world, it will never be possible to insulate ourselves from the pulls and pressures of international demand and supply. The State governments must forge appropriate strategies to bolster food production and tackle shortages of essential supplies. The importance of making the public distribution system strong and efficient for making essential commodities available to the poor and to the common man at reasonable prices cannot be over emphasized. There are many instruments at your command and it is expected that you should not be found wanting in their judicious use. On behalf of the Central government I would take this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to assist States in everyway we can in all these and other areas.

Poor infrastructure continues to be a road block in the path of our rapid progress. Shortages of electricity, poor roads, over-crowded ports, delayed flights, all retard our economic efficiency and damage our international image. States which have relatively better infrastructure attract investment while the others lag behind. This is a lesson which all States have to imbibe. Those who have lagged behind have to go that extra mile in developing their infrastructure rapidly. I would also in this context refer to the need of putting in place requisite administrative structures to deal with the crisis arising out of what has come to be known as disaster management. We have to prevent disasters but we have to recognize that they have a mode of taking place which we cannot prevent and therefore we must equip ourselves to meet the challenge of effective disaster management in a credible manner.

Climate change was referred to by Shri Prithviraj Chavan and it poses a threat not only to us but to our future generations as well. We attach immense importance to meeting this challenge. We have launched a National Action Plan on Climate Change. This Action Plan encompasses eight National Missions. The goals that we have set for ourselves are indeed ambitious. Much of the action in respect of the National Missions has to be taken by the States. There will be need for local adaptation, for assessing what will work and above all, for involving the local communities in processes of implementation. It rests upon you to provide the necessary leadership and impetus to the implementation of these very important eight missions.

There are other issues that are included in the agenda of the Conference which I have not touched upon but which are no less important. I hope they will get the attention they deserve.

I expect this conference to afford all of you an opportunity for a free and frank exchange of views and for a better understanding of one another’s problems. I hope it will be a rewarding experience for all those present here. The development of a country is largely a function of how committed people who man the top administrative echelons of the country are to the challenges of faster and equitable development and therefore you shoulder very heavy responsibilities in getting our country moving forward at a pace which we need to banish poverty, ignorance and disease from this ancient land of ours. With these words, I wish you all the very best in your deliberations and in your endeavours.”

Compulsory Voting

2010-01-11T21:13:00.001+05:30

Compulsory Voting

WHAT IS COMPULSORY VOTING?

Most democratic governments consider participating in national elections a right of citizenship. Some consider that participation at elections is also a citizen's civic responsibility. In some countries, where voting is considered a duty, voting at elections has been made compulsory and has been regulated in the national constitutions and electoral laws. Some countries go as far as to impose sanctions on non-voters.

Compulsory voting is not a new concept. Some of the first countries that introduced mandatory voting laws were Belgium in 1892, Argentina in 1914 and Australia in 1924. There are also examples of countries such as Venezuela and the Netherlandswhich at one time in their history practiced compulsory voting but have since abolished it.

Advocates of compulsory voting argue that decisions made by democratically elected governments are more legitimate when higher proportions of the population participate. They argue further that voting, voluntarily or otherwise, has an educational effect upon the citizens. Political parties can derive financial benefits from compulsory voting, since they do not have to spend resources convincing the electorate that it should in general turn out to vote. Lastly, if democracy is government by the people, presumably this includes all people, then it is every citizen's responsibility to elect their representatives.

The leading argument against compulsory voting is that it is not consistent with the freedom associated with democracy. Voting is not an intrinsic obligation and the enforcement of the law would be an infringement of the citizens' freedom associated with democratic elections. It may discourage the political education of the electorate because people forced to participate will react against the perceived source of oppression. Is a government really more legitimate if the high voter turnout is against the will of the voters? Many countries with limited financial capacity may not be able to justify the expenditures of maintaining and enforcing compulsory voting laws. It has been proved that forcing the population to vote results in an increased number of invalid and blank votes compared to countries that have no compulsory voting laws.

Another consequence of mandatory voting is the possible high number of "random votes". Voters who are voting against their free will may check off a candidate at random, particularly the top candidate on the ballot. The voter does not care whom they vote for as long as the government is satisfied that they fulfilled their civic duty. What effect does this immeasureable category of random votes have on the legitimacy of the democratically elected government?

A figure depicting the exact number of countries that practice compulsory voting is quite arbitrary. The simple presence or absence of mandatory voting laws in a constitution is far too simplistic. It is more constructive to analyze compulsory voting as a spectrum ranging from a symbolic, but basically impotent, law to a government which systematic follow-up of each non-voting citizen and implement sanctions against them.

This spectrum implies that some countries formally have compulsory voting laws but do not, and have no intention to, enforce them. There are a variety of possible reasons for this.

Not all laws are created to be enforced. Some laws are created to merely state the government's position regarding what the citizen's responsibility should be. Mandatory voting laws that do not include sanctions may fall into this category. Although a government may not enforce mandatory voting laws or even have formal sanctions in law for failing to vote, the law may have some effect upon the citizens. For example, inAustria voting is compulsory in only two regions, with sanctions being weakly enforced. However, these regions tend to have a higher turnout average than the national average.

Other possible reasons for not enforcing the laws could be complexity and resources required for enforcement. Countries with limited budgets may not place the enforcement of mandatory voting laws as a high priority still they hope that the presence of the law will encourage the citizens to participate.

Can a country be considered to practice compulsory voting if the mandatory voting laws are ignored and irrelevant to the voting habits of the electorate? Is a country practicing compulsory voting if there are no penalties for not voting? What if there are penalties for failing to vote but they are never or are scarcely enforced? Or if the penalty is negligible?

Many countries offer loopholes, intentionally and otherwise, which allow non-voters to go unpunished. For example, in many countries it is required to vote only if you are a registered voter, but it is not compulsory to register. People might then have incentives not to register. In many cases, like Australia, an acceptable excuse for absence on Election Day will avoid sanctions.

The diverse forms compulsory voting has taken in different countries refocuses the perception of it away from an either present or absent practice of countries to a study of the degree and manner in which the government forces its citizens to participate.

WHICH COUNTRIES PRACTICE COMPULSORY VOTING?

LAWS, SANCTIONS & ENFORCEMENT

Below is a table containing all the countries that have a law that provides for compulsory voting. The first column lists the name of the country, the second column the type of sanctions that the relevant country imposes against non-voters and the third column contains the information on to what extent the compulsory voting laws are enforced in practice.

Country	Type of Sanction	Enforced	Year Introduced	Comments
Argentina	1, 2, 4	Yes	1912	-
Australia	1, 2	Yes	1924	-
Austria (Tyrol)	1, 2	Yes	Practiced from 1929 to 2004	The region of Tyrol.
Austria (Vorarlberg)	2, 3	Yes	Practiced from 1929 to 1992	The region of Vorarlberg.
Austria (Styria)	N/A	Yes	Practiced from 1929 to 1992	The region of Styria.
Belgium	1, 2, 4, 5	Yes	1919 (men)	Women in 1949.
Bolivia	None/4	No	1952	18 years of age(married); 21 years of age (single)
Brazil	2	Yes	N/A	Voluntary for illiterates and those over 70. Military conscripts cannot vote.
Chile	1, 2, 3	Yes	1925(?)	-
Congo, Democratic Republic of the	N/A	N/A	N/A
Costa Rica	None	No	N/A	-
Cyprus	1, 2	Yes	1960	-
Dominican Republic	None	No	N/A	18 years of age, married persons regardless of age; Members of the military and national police cannot vote.
Ecuador	2	Yes	1936	Compulsory for literate persons ages 18-65, optional for other eligible voters.
Egypt	1, 2, 3	No	1956	This is the year from which we have found the earliest law. (Only men are allowed to vote)
Fiji	1, 2, 3	Yes	N/A	*Presumably strict prior to the coup d'état
France (Senate only)	2	No	1950's or 60's	-
Gabon	N/A	No	N/A	-
Greece	None	No	1926	Administrative sanctions, including prohibition to issue a passport, a driving license or an occupational license, were officially lifted in year 2000
Guatemala	None	No	N/A	Military personnel cannot vote.
Honduras	None	No	N/A	-
Italy	5	No	Practised from 1945 to 1993	-
Lebanon	N/A	N/A	N/A	21 years of age; compulsory for all males; authorized for women at age 21 with elementary education; excludes military personnel
Liechtenstein	1, 2	Yes	N/A	-
Luxembourg	1, 2	Yes	N/A	Voluntary for those over 70.
Mexico	None / 5	No	N/A	-
Nauru	1, 2	Yes	1965	-
Netherlands	-	No	Practised from 1917 to 1967	-
Panama	N/A	N/A	N/A	-
Paraguay	2	No	N/A	Up to age 75
Peru	2, 4	Yes	1933	Until the age of 75.
Philippines	None	No	Attempt to practice 1972-1986 under martial law.	-
Spain	N/A	No	Practiced from 1907 to 1923
Singapore	4	Yes	N/A	The non-voter is removed from the voter register until he/she reapplies and provides a reason.
Switzerland (Schaffhausen)	2	Yes	1904	Practised in only one canton. Abolished in other cantons in 1974
Thailand	None	No	N/A	-
Turkey	1, 2	Yes	N/A	-
Uruguay	2, 4	Yes	1934	Law not in practice until 1970.
U.S.A (Georgia)	N/A	No		Stated in 1777 Constitution of Georgia.
Venezuela	N/A	N/A		Practiced until 1993

Table updated March 2009

The numbers listed in the column for Type of Sanction stands for different types of sanctions. These are as follows:

1. Explanation. The non-voter has to provide a legitimate reason for his/her abstention to avoid further sanctions, if any exist.

2. Fine. The non-voter faces a fine sanction. The amount varies between the countries, for example 3 Swiss Francs in Switzerland, between 300 and 3 000 ATS in Austria, 200 Cyprus Pounds in Cyprus, 10-20 Argentinean Pesos in Argentina, 20 Soles in Peru etc.

3. Possible imprisonment. The non-voter may face imprisonment as a sanction, however, we do not know of any documented cases. This can also happen in countries such as Australia where a fine sanction is common. In cases where the non-voter does not pay the fines after being reminded or after refusing several times, the courts may impose a prison sentence. This is usually classified as imprisonment for failure to pay the fine, not imprisonment for failure to vote.

4. Infringements of civil rights or disenfranchisement. It is for example possible that the non-voter, after not voting in at least four elections within 15 years will be disenfranchised in Belgium. In Peru the voter has to carry a stamped voting card for a number of months after the election as a proof of having voted. This stamp is required in order to obtain some services and goods from some public offices. In Singapore the voter is removed from the voter register until he/she reapplies to be included and submits a legitimate reason for not having voted. In Bolivia the voter is given a card when he/she has voted so that he/she can proof the participation. The voter would not be able to receive his/her salary from the bank if he/she can not show the proof of voting during three months after the election.

5. Other. For example in Belgium it might be difficult getting a job within the public sector if you are non-voter. There are no formal sanctions in Mexico or Italy but possible arbitrary or social sanctions. This is called the "innocuous sanction" in Italy, where it might for example be difficult to get a daycare place for your child or similar but this is not formalised in any way at all.

Happy New Year

2010-01-01T09:56:00.001+05:30

H appiness depends upon your outlook on life.
A ttitude is just as important as ability.
P assion - find your's this year.
P ositive thoughts make everything easier.
Y ou are unique, with special gifts, use them.

N ew beginnings with a new year.
E nthusiasm - a true secret of success.
W ishes - may they turn into goals.

Y ears go by too quickly, enjoy them.
E nergy - may you have lots of it.
A ppreciation of life, don't take it for granted.
R elax - take the time to relax in this coming year.

Parliament in Winter Session 2009 (Nov 19th - Dec 22nd)

2009-12-23T07:22:00.000+05:30

Parliament met for the Winter Session starting 19th November this year. Lok Sabha sat for 21 days and Rajya Sabha for 23. The session saw discussions on several major issues that included sugarcane pricing, climate change, price rise and the Liberhan report. We present some statistics from this recently concluded session.

On 6 out of 21 days, Lok Sabha met for less than 2 hrs
	Several hours were lost to interruptions. Total productive time in Lok Sabha was 106 hours, 76% of scheduled time. Productive time in Rajya Sabha was 102 hours, 88% of scheduled time. Attendance in the Lok Sabha varied between 56% and 75% with the average for the session at 66%. Rajya Sabha saw an average attendance of 68%. 30^th Nov (the Monday following the long weekend) saw the lowest attendance. Issues taken up for discussion on this day included natural calamities in the country and law and order situation in West Bengal.
Of 26 Bills planned for passage, only 14 were actually passed
	Prior to the commencement of each session, the Government publishes a list of business. Among other things, this agenda contains the list of Bills that the Government seeks to pass. However, the number of Bills actually passed is often lower than this plan. The last session saw only 23% of the plan being achieved. For this current Winter Session, the Government had lined up 26 Bills for passage. However, only 14 were actually passed.
In 34% cases, the inquiring MP was absent when the question was called in Lok Sabha
	Starred questions – questions orally answered by Ministers during Question Hour – are usually followed with supplementary questions from other MPs. However, of the total 440 starred questions admitted this session in the Lok Sabha, only 131 were called in the House. The remaining 309 questions could not be called due to paucity of time. For 44 called questions, the respective MPs were not present in the House. Thus, only 87 were orally answered. On 30 November, only 3 questions were orally answered in the Lok Sabha as MPs who had raised the other 17 were absent. The Question Hour was thus wound up in 25 minutes. The situation was similar in Rajya Sabha - of the total 460 admitted questions, only 18% were orally answered. Recently, the Rajya Sabha amended its rules to ensure that no starred question goes unanswered in the absence of the members who posed them.
48% MPs in Lok Sabha did not participate in any Debate
	Several major issues were taken up for discussion this session. These included sugarcane pricing, climate change, price rise and the Liberhan report. However, 48% of the members in Lok Sabha did not participate in any debate. Of those who spoke, 25% restricted themselves to 1-2 debates. Only 3% MPs participated in more than 10 debates. A similar pattern existed in Rajya Sabha. 50% MPs did not participate at all and only 1% spoke in more than 10 debates.

Notes:

This list of Bills does not include Finance and Appropriation Bills
The entire analysis is based on detailed data obtained from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha websites.
Data on debates was compiled from the daily Bulletin I supplemented with the actual text of debates as published by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha secretariats
In our analysis, we did not include proposals and responses by Ministers to various issues.

Roadmap for Judicial Reforms

2009-09-29T23:06:00.000+05:30

In a country where courts take decades to deliver verdicts, this is sure to sound audacious.

Law minister Veerappa Moily is attempting the unthinkable -- reducing the life of litigation from an average 15 years at present to one year, and that too in just three years from now.

The `Mission Document', which his ministry is preparing to be used as a `roadmap' for judicial reforms, backs up this high-spirited plan with measures like setting up 5,000 new courts across the country that will work in three shifts -- morning, day and evening.

"The infrastructure will remain the same but we will get the work of 15,000 courts to liquidate the 2.74 crore cases, which are pending in trial courts clogging the wheels of justice and entailing a litigant's endless wait for a decision in his case," Moily told TOI in an interview.

To start with, there will be Gram Nyayalays, which will be functional from Gandhi Jayanti on October 2 this year, he said. "In the coming three years, we will set up 5,000 more courts with a clear mandate that from the time of filing of a case till its decision, no more than six months time should be taken," he said and hoped that a substantial percentage of the pendency would be wiped off.

These additional courts will be backed by a solid case management plan that includes clubbing identical cases. Importantly, a judge cannot keep his judgment reserved for a long time.

"While cutting down delay in completing the trial procedure for each case, there will be a time limit put on every judge to deliver his verdict," Moily said, adding, "The time limit for giving judgments after completion of hearing will also be applicable to judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court."

In making functional the additional 5,000 courts, the services of retired judges will be requisitioned both in the trial courts and the High Courts, which are also reeling under a pendency of nearly 40 lakh cases. A retired district judge, whose services are requisitioned, could expect a fixed pay of Rs 50,000 per month.

"We will train and equip trial court judges, provide them with laptops. Information technology will play a huge role in faster disposal of cases with the help of additional courts," Moily said.

While taking care of procedural delays and providing additional manpower to deal with pendency, the law minister also wants to reduce filing of cases, the government being the biggest litigant in higher courts.

This problem of excessive litigation on behalf of the government has arisen because no officer is ready to stick his neck out for taking a decision not to approach a higher court in the fear of being pulled up later.

"We will evolve a policy to be followed by officers in taking decisions whether or not the government should file an appeal in the higher courts or not. Once the criteria for filing of an appeal is evolved, which would be a little conservative towards moving higher courts, I expect a drastic fall in governmental litigation," the law minister said.

Govt is also planning to requisition the services of retired judges to deal with the pendency of cases. A retired district judge could expect a fixed pay of Rs 50,000 per month.

"We will train and equip trial court judges, provide them with laptops. Information technology will play a huge role in faster disposal of cases with the help of additional courts", law minister Veerappa Moily said. While taking care of procedural delays and providing additional manpower to deal with pendency, the law minister also wants to reduce filing of cases, the government being the biggest litigant in higher courts.

Blowing The Whistle - CVC Appointments

2009-09-23T05:57:00.001+05:30

-Prashant Bhushan is Advocate, Supreme Court of India, V.K. Shunglu is former Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Arvind Kejriwal is an RTI Activist and Madhu Bhadhuri is former Ambassador, Government of India.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was set up as a department of the government of India in the 1960s. It was functioning as an organization to advise government on all matters relating to corruption in public services and lack of integrity vis-à-vis public servants. Subsequently, in the Hawala case in 1997, the Supreme Court directed that the CBI should be freed from government control and that the CVC will have superintendence over the functioning of the CBI and it will also be granted statutory status so as to make it independent of the government. Thereafter, section 8 1 (a) & (b) of the Central Vigilance Act, 2003 gave supervisory jurisdiction over the CBI to the CVC. It also granted statutory status to the CVC and provided for a procedure for appointment of the members of the CVC by a Committee comprising of the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Subsequently, in 2005, after the murder of Satyendra Dubey, who had blown the whistle on corruption in NHAI, the Supreme Court directed that the Government put in place either an Act or at least administrative procedures for entertaining complaints of whistle blowers and protecting them from victimization. Consequently, pending legislation on the subject, the government issued an administrative order known as the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informer (PIDPI) resolution by which CVC was empowered to entertain complaints from a whistle blower from any part of the Central government or its Public Sector Undertakings. It also empowered the CVC to get those complaints investigated through any agency of the government and also issue suitable directions to the government for the prosecution of officers. It further empowered the CVC to issue directions to the government for the protection of whistle blowers from victimization and for providing security to those persons.

Through all these processes, the CVC came to be regarded as the main institutional bulwark in this country against corruption. In addition to its original function of advising government on all matters relating to corruption in public services and lack of integrity vis-à-vis public servants, the CVC also acquired the power to supervise the functioning of the CBI in its investigations and also to entertain complaints by whistle blowers and to take suitable action by way of prosecuting corrupt officers found in those cases and protecting the whistle blowers.

Unfortunately, over the last few years, as the following examples and case studies would show, the CVC has failed to live up to the expectations of acting as an institutional bulwark against corruption. In particular, it has failed to appreciate its powers and functions to supervise the functioning of the CBI and its role as an institution to whom whistle blowers could turn for action against corrupt officers or for protection against victimization. What can be seen is the following:

In a large number of corruption cases by public servants supported by documents sent to the CBI for investigation, the CBI even refused to register an FIR and investigate the matter. Despite repeated written complaints being made to the CVC and requesting the CVC to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the CBI to get it to investigate those cases, the CVC has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested by the CVC Act.
One example of such a case is the Scorpene Submarine deal case, where the Citizens Forum Against Corruption comprising of a number of highly respected retired government officers, like the former Navy Chief Adml. Tahiliani, former Ambassadors of the Government of India, former Secretaries of the government, etc., wrote to the CBI to investigate the corruption in the Rs.18000 crore Submarine purchase contract in which large amount of evidence and documents were published by Outlook magazine. The CBI refused to register an FIR and the CVC did not direct the CBI to do so, despite it being a case crying for investigation.
Similarly, in the complaint against former Chief Justice of India, Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, again, despite detailed written complaints to the CBI based on documentary evidence by respectable persons, no FIR was registered nor any investigation made by the CBI. Again the CVC did not use its supervisory jurisdiction over the CBI to get it investigated.
More recently, in another case involving a telecom licence given to Swan Technologies, there was compelling evidence to suggest that the licence was given for a bribe by transferring shares of the company to benami companies. No FIR was directed to be registered and the CVC merely asked the CVO of the Department of Telecom itself (the very Department against whom complaint had been made) to investigate the same and give a report to the CVC. It may be pointed out that this was a case where a company having an original asset of one crore (to which Reliance had Rs.1000 crore by way of preference shares), was transferred for a few crores to a Mauritius Company with unknown owners just before the licence was granted. With days of the grant of a telecom licence and spectrum, it was sold off to a gulf based company for about 10,000 crores.

All this has defeated the express intention of the Supreme Court on the basis of which this supervisory jurisdiction over the CBI was vested with the CVC.

CVC's role under the whistle blower protection notification

Several hundred complaints under the Whistle Blower Protection Notification have been received by the CVC. Many of these were very serious complaints involving serious acts of corruption by very senior officials in various government departments or Public Sector organizations. However, it appears that in virtually none of those cases, has the CVC recommended any serious action against any senior officers complained against. Not only this, in a large number of cases, the whistle blower was subjected to severe victimization by way of charge sheets, suspensions and transfers. In virtually no case, has the CVC ordered the government departments/PSUs to stop the administrative harassment/victimization of the whistle blower even when it was absolutely clear that the victimization was mala fide and was taking place only on account of the whistle blown by the person. In fact, in some of these cases, the CVC has gone so far as to align itself with the senior officer/government department/PSU against whom the whistle blower had made these complaints. In a case, where a whistle blower has complained against the Chairman of the Central Bank of India, the CVC not only did not take any action against the Chairman nor did it protect the whistle blower from victimization by way of suspension/repeated charge sheeting/transfer, etc., but went further to ask the Central Bank to engage a common lawyer to defend the CVC in the petition filed by the whistle blower in the High Court.

The pattern which emerges regarding the manner in which the CVC dealt with the whistle blowers is as follows:

In the beginning, the entire attention of the CVC was focused on routinely protecting the identity of the whistle blower and not processing the complaints further by investigating the charges, etc. Later, the manner in which the complaints were processed was to send them to the CVO of the same department against whom the complaint had been made, which in turn sends the complaint to the person against whom the complaint was made for his response. Usually, on the response of the officer against whom the complaint had been made, the complaint was closed without even referring the response to the whistle blower for pointing out any misleading or false information given by the complained in his defence. Usually, the CVOs of the various departments are officers within the same department who are working under more senior officers in that department and their ACRs are also written by these senior officers. It is, therefore, unrealistic to expect these CVOs to find fault with their bosses who would be writing their ACRs. However, despite this, this kind of routine procedure has been adopted by the CVC to get white-washing reports from the CVOs and close the complaints on that basis without any independent investigation and without even referring the response back to the whistle blower.

The whistleblowers have usually been victimized by their bosses against whom the complaints were made, usually by way of departmental chargesheets and transfers. No action has been taken by the CVC to protect them from such victimization on the basis that taking departmental action against the employees is the prerogative of the department. This attitude has rendered the power given to the CVC by the whistleblower notification into a dead letter.As a result of inaction on the part of the CVC, the whistle blower complaints have been coming down.

No of Whistle Blower complaints received by the CVC

In 2006- 338
In 2007- 328
In 2008- 276

It is clear that the CVC has failed to live up to the expectations of it functioning as an institutional bulwark against corruption. The reasons appear to be that by and large persons being appointed as Vigilance Commissioners are former bureaucrats from various ministries and departments. Unfortunately, it appears that despite the statutory status given to the CVC to enable it act independently of the government, most of these members have not been able to outgrow their bureaucratic servility to their political masters. Perhaps, the problem also lies in the choice of the bureaucrats chosen to become members of the CVC. It appears and stands to reason that neither the present government nor the leader of the opposition (who is an important member of the previous government and aspiring to become a member of the future government) are interested in having a CVC which will function as a true watchdog or bulwark against corruption. Since the leaders of the present government or the previous government or their colleagues would be the subject matter of investigations and prosecution for corruption, if the CVC were to fulfill the role assigned to it and expected of it by the Supreme Court, it appears that they want a servile and submissive officer as Vigilance Commissioner who would deal with corruption cases in a routine manner and not as a vigilant and aggressive watchdog against corruption. In fact, similar problem has cropped up in the appointment of other statutory authorities like NHRC.

Today, when the government is in the process of drafting a Whistle Blower Act, perhaps the time has come to revisit the method of appointment of members of the CVC and the transparency and methodology of these appointments. The time has perhaps come to put in place a mechanism to free such appointments from the influence of those persons who are likely to be the subject matter of the anti-corruption exercise of the CVC and also put in place a system of selection which guarantees transparency and some degree of public participation.

The Khaki must shine

2009-09-17T03:06:00.002+05:30

-Prakash Singh.

The Police organisation in India in its present form is based, essentially, on the Police Act of 1861, which was specifically designed to raise a police which would be “politically more useful.” It constituted a single homogeneous force of civil constabulary for the entire country to perform duties which could not be assigned to the military arm.

The Indian Police Commission of 1902-03, which reviewed the working of the police, found that “the police force throughout the country is in a most unsatisfactory condition, that abuses are common everywhere, that this involves great injury to the people and discredit to the government, and that radical reforms are urgently necessary.” This was the first time that a responsible body talked of police reforms. Ironically, the battle for reforms continues even after more than a hundred years.

At the dawn of Independence, the political masters could have restructured the police and made it accountable to the people. The transformation was unfortunately not carried out. As years passed, every successive government found it convenient to use, misuse and abuse the police for its partisan political ends. In 1977, the government appointed the National Police Commission (NPC) as it felt that “far reaching changes have taken place in the country” since independence but “there has been no comprehensive review of the police system after independence despite radical changes in the political, social and economic situation in the country.” The NPC submitted eight detailed reports between 1979 and 1981, containing comprehensive recommendations covering the entire gamut of police working.

The government’s response to the core recommendations of the NPC was, unfortunately, negative. In 1983, when the reports were forwarded to the State Governments, they were asked merely to take appropriate follow-up action. The hint was more than obvious and it was not surprising therefore that the state governments conveniently put the major recommendations of the NPC in cold storage.

These recommendations of the NPC were subsequently resurrected in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court in 1996. At the time the petition was filed, the Supreme Court’s attention was drawn, among other things, to two major tragedies which had overtaken the Republic due to the failure of the police to uphold the rule of law: the Delhi riots of 1984 and the demolition of the disputed shrine at Ayodhya in 1992. The Justice Nanavati Commission, which inquired into the 1984 riots, recommended that “there should be an independent police force which should be free from the political influence and which is well equipped to take immediate and effective action.” The Liberhan Commission report on Ayodhya is yet to be made public.

During the pendency of the petition, another tragedy befell the country—the Gujarat Riots in 2002 when the police acted in a partisan manner. The National Human Rights Commission, which inquired into the incidents, urged “that the matter of police reform receive attention at the highest political level, at the Centre and in the States, and that this issue be pursued in good faith, and on a sustained basis with the greater interest of the country alone in mind.”

It is significant that while the PIL was progressing in the Supreme Court, three Committees were appointed by the government at different periods of time to deliberate over the question of police reforms: the Ribeiro Committee in 1998, the Padmanabhaiah Committee in 2000 and the Malimath Committee on criminal justice system in 2002. All three committees broadly came to the same conclusions and emphasised the urgent need for police reforms in the context of newly emerging challenges. However, the much needed reforms were never carried out because of the combined opposition of the political parties.

The dilemma before the Supreme Court was whether it should wait further for the governments to take suitable steps for police reforms. However, as recorded in the judgement, “having regard to (i) the gravity of the problem; (ii) the urgent need for preservation and strengthening of Rule of Law; (iii) pendency of even this petition for last over ten years; (iv) the fact that various Commissions and Committees have made recommendations on similar lines for introducing reforms in the police set up in the country; and (v) total uncertainty as to when police reforms would be introduced, we think that there cannot be any further wait, and the stage has come for issue of appropriate directions for immediate compliance so as to be operative till such time a new model Police Act is prepared by the Central Government and/or the State Governments pass the requisite legislations.”

In a landmark judgement on September 22, 2006 the Supreme Court demolished in one stroke the colonial police structure that hobbled India for over 145 years. It ordered the setting up of three institutions at the state level with a view to insulating the police from extraneous influences, giving it functional autonomy and ensuring its accountability. These institutions are:

State Security Commission which would lay down the broad policies and give directions for the performance of the preventive tasks and service oriented functions of the police;
Police Establishment Board comprising the Director General of Police and four other senior officers of the Department which shall decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and make appropriate recommendations regarding the postings and transfers of officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above to the state government; and
Police Complaints Authority at the district and state levels with a view to inquiring into allegations of misconduct by the police personnel.

Besides, the Court ordered that the Director-General of Police shall be selected by the state government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission, and that the appointee shall have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years. Police officers on operational duties in the field like the inspector-general in charge of a zone, deputy inspector-general in charge of a range, superintendent in charge of a district and station house officer in charge of a police station would also have a minimum tenure of two years. The Court also ordered the separation of investigating police from the law and order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and improved rapport with the people.

The Union government was also asked to set up a National Security Commission for the selection and placement of heads of central police organisations, upgrading the effectiveness of these forces and improving the service conditions of its personnel.

The Soli Sorabjee Committee drafted and submitted a Model Police Act to the central government on October 30, 2006. The Model Police Act conformed to the fundamental principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, though there are slight differences in nomenclature and in details.

The Supreme Court orders and Sorabjee Committee recommendations have the potential to transform the police and change its working philosophy. The transition is however encountering strong opposition from the political leadership and the bureaucracy. Ten states have satisfactorily complied with the directions of the Supreme Court, but the majority of states are dragging their feet. Some states have enacted laws with a view to circumventing the implementation of Supreme Court’s directions. Unfortunately, there is total absence of public consultation on the subject.

The reforms, it needs to be understood, are not for the glory of the police—they are to give better security and protection to the people of the country, uphold their human rights and generally improve governance.

The Supreme Court has meanwhile constituted a monitoring committee to oversee the implementation of its directions in the various states. It is obvious that unless the judiciary cracks the whip and makes an example of one or two non-compliant states, the much needed reforms would remain only as an aspiration. Unfortunately, the monitoring committee is working at a slow place and seems averse to making any stringent recommendation to the Supreme Court. Public opinion must press the executive and the judiciary to accelerate the process of police reforms. The media should also contribute to this effort.

The stakes are very high. The challenges on the law and order front are getting more complex with every passing day. Organised crime is spreading its tentacles. Naxalites pose a formidable challenge. The terrorist threat is extremely serious and has the potential to destabilise the country. We cannot face the formidable challenges of the present times with a police force which was raised to meet the challenges of a colonial past. Our first line of defence has to be strengthened and its capabilities augmented. There is no room for further delay.

India Fatalities

2009-07-13T07:06:00.000+05:30

India Fatalities

India Fatalities, 2009

	Civilians	Security Force Personnel	Terrorists	Total
Jammu & Kashmir	30	30	112	172
Assam	104	19	108	231
Manipur	45	6	213	264
Meghalaya	0	0	3	3
Mizoram	0	0	0	0
Nagaland	3	0	5	8
Tripura	0	0	1	1
Uttar Pradesh	0	0	2	2
West Bengal	2	0	0	2
Left-wing Extremism	138	209	138	485
Total*	322	264	582	1168

*Data till June 26, 2009

India Fatalities, 2008

	Civilians	Security Force Personnel	Terrorists	Total
Jammu & Kashmir	69	90	382	541
Assam	224	16	133	373
Delhi	27	1	2	30
Gujarat	57	0	0	57
Haryana	0	0	1	1
Maharashtra	171	20	9	200
Karnataka	0	0	2	2
Manipur	131	13	348	492
Meghalaya	0	1	11	12
Mizoram	0	4	1	5
Nagaland	42	2	101	145
Rajasthan	80	0	0	80
Tripura	7	4	16	27
Left-wing Extremism	210	214	214	638
Uttar Pradesh	1	7	0	8
Total	1019	372	1220	2611

India Fatalities, 2007

	Civilians	Security Force Personnel	Terrorists	Total
Jammu & Kashmir	164	121	492	777
Andhra Pradesh	55	0	0	55
Arunachal Pradesh	0	0	12	12
Assam	269	19	149	437
Manipur	150	40	218	408
Meghalaya	4	1	13	18
Nagaland	20	0	88	108
Punjab	7	0	0	7
Rajasthan	2	0	0	2
Tripura	10	5	21	36
Left-wing Extremism	240	218	192	650
Haryana	68	0	0	68
Tamil Nadu	5	0	0	5
Uttar Pradesh	15	0	0	15
Total	1009	404	1185	2598

India Fatalities, 2006

	Civilians	Security Force Personnel	Terrorists	Total
Jammu & Kashmir	349	168	599	1116
Assam	96	35	43	174
Manipur	95	37	148	280
Meghalaya	7	0	17	24
Nagaland	9	1	80	90
Tripura	11	19	29	59
Left-wing Extremism	266	128	348	742
Uttar Pradesh	21	0	1	22
Gujarat	0	0	4	4
Maharashtra	240	0	4	244
West Bengal	10	0	0	10
Total	1104	388	1273	2765

1994-2005
(Data does not include fatalities in left-wing extremism)

Year	Civilians	Security Force Personnel	Terrorists	Total
1994	1696	417	1919	4032
1995	1779	493	1603	3875
1996	2084	615	1482	4181
1997	1740	641	1734	4115
1998	1819	526	1419	3764
1999	1377	763	1614	3754
2000	1803	788	2384	4975
2001	1693	721	3425	5839
2002	1174	623	2176	3973
2003	1187	420	2095	3702
2004	886	434	1322	2642
2005	913	287	1319	2519
Total	18151	6728	22492	47371

*The figures are calculated from the following regions

	Civilians	Security Force Personnel	Terrorists	Total
Jammu & Kashmir	10483	4736	17458	32677
Northeast	7287	1978	4930	14195
Punjab	82	2	91	175
Others	299	12	13	324
Total	18151	6728	22492	47371

NATIONAL ID SCHEME: Your identification, Please.

2009-07-06T08:56:00.000+05:30

-Ashwin Mahesh

co-founder and editor at India Together

The Centre has decided, not for the first time, that all Indians should have a Unique Identification Number. The idea itself has been floating around for a few years, with even a few pilots launched here and there, mostly to no avail. This time, however, unlike in the past the government appears to be serious, and has appointed one of the leading advocates of the plan, former Infosys CEO Nandan Nilekani to head the Unique Identification Authority of India, created earlier this year.

Nandan has thought of the need for a national ID system for as long as anyone else, and given his combination of professional expertise and personal interest in this exercise, he is a powerful and practical choice to take up this task. And in giving him this role, the government too has acted well, preferring the specific technology-driven objective of the UIDAI to some other responsibilities. As a member of the Planning Commission or at the helm of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, just to cite two other jobs linked to his name, the difficulties would have been greater (the PC is losing its relevance, and MHRD is a regulatory mine-field better left to a career politician than a techno-manager).

The corporate world has been particularly hearty in cheering Nilekani's appointment, seeing this as new direction in which 'skill' and 'management techniques' may at last be starting to be welcomed in governance too. I think it is hasty to read any such intent for the moment; instead we must see this appointment more as a continuation of an existing trend, analagous to (but of lesser significance) than the earlier selection of Montek Singh Ahluwalia and the Prime Minister himself for their offices. Nandan may simply be the 'man for the job' within the terms of the political walls that now exist.

The 'need' for an 'identifier'

The most powerful arguments for the Multi-purpose National Identity Card (MNIC) have relied on the principle of necessity. Somewhat simplistically, there is a tendency to think that 'developed' economies are those with robust identification systems, and peg the national ID to this kind of thinking. Secondly, it is argued that ID systems are needed to curb the excessive waste and pilferage that is now standard in all our expenditure programs (the UIDAI has an explicit focus on curbing the losses in vast Centrally-funded programs). But there are good reasons not to get carried away by this rhetoric.

There are some very developed countries that do not use a national ID card - Wikipedia currently lists Australia, Denmark, Ireland, Japan and the UK among countries without a national identification scheme. Australia recently even shelved its plans to create one, in the face of opposition. And the American Social Security Number, which is the most commonly cited example of the kind of system we 'need', is not really a system for the 'identification' of individuals, although it is used in that way by certain sections of American society (see box).
Cleaning up big-ticket Central schemes is clearly a welcome goal. But there is no need to mix this up with the focus of the national ID program. The merit of an objective is not the same as the merit of the effort/method to achieve it. Failures in the delivery of public service delivery may be tackled partially by the creation of identity systems, but this is not necessarily the only or best way to do it. Many services already have their own IDs, in fact - this is the clearest evidence that their poor performance is not due to a lack of ID systems or technology, but a broader failure of governance.
Linking the ID to benefits under any of the ongoing programs is a risk. Practically speaking, the benefits cannot be linked to the ID itself, since (to begin with, and for some years) most of the beneficiaries of various programs will not have completed the identification process. This means, inevitably, that we will have a certain period during which benefits will have to be delivered to those without IDs, or denied to those unable to establish IDs at the point of service. Indeed, these are problems that already exist for most programs, and saddling the UIDAI with resolving these is a mistake.

Let us also not forget another important reality. An ID only makes sense if it reveals something about the person whose identity it contains. Usually, this will include some personal details (age, sex, date of birth, caste, religion, and so on - some of these are particularly needed for programs where benefits are linked to one or more of these pieces of data) but it is not not clear that people want to be identified clearly in all cases. In India, identity is already a potent issue, and the cause of endless ethnic and religious conflict - a system to improve identification, therefore, will inevitably raise concerns over potential abuse. And our politics, which is essentially defensive, isn't ready to deal with this.

In the US, Social Security numbers were introduced for a pension program based on employer contributions, and were not intended for broad ID purposes. And despite this limited focus, it took five years for the program to get off the ground. Even today many agencies of the US government and the states do not use it to establish identity at the point of delivering services or benefits

• E isn't everything
• Interview with Nandan Nilekani
• Book Review: Imagining India

An additional difficulty, in the case of the UIDAI, is the expectation that it should deliver something within two or three years. This may be too much to expect, given that much of the 'implementation' would need to negotiate its way past the countless array of programs that the Centre and the States have, each with its own well-guarded administrative and political turf. In the optimism over Nandan's appointment to the UIDAI, we should not forget the complexity of the challenge ahead.

Fixing the goal posts

Given all this, what are the options before the UIDAI? The Government has already put its foot into its mouth, by linking the Authority to the specific goal of reducing irregularities in its flagship social welfare programmes. Therefore, this is not a focus the UIDAI can withdraw from. The best alternative would be to puruse a few other objectives which are critical, and and hope that favourable outcomes on these other fronts can be leveraged to overcome obstacles to the stated goal of cleaning up Bharat Nirman or the NREGS.

Distribute, distribute, distribute!
First, the Authority must decouple the goal of getting people identified from the question of how these IDs will be used. The distribution of IDs is an idependent goal, and should not be linked to questions about where they will be used, or even what they will reveal about those being identified. If this view is embraced, then a program of rapid ID distribution can be taken up.
Anyone who wants an ID should be given one with minimum fuss, as long as any other government-issued ID is provided as documentary evidence. The Authority should launch an all-out effort to distribute as many IDs as possible through as many channels as available, so that numerous touch-points for getting hold of an ID are accessible to citizens. Once IDs are issued, it can embrace the techniques of the internet era, allowing citizens to 'crowd-source in' their documents to link these to the IDs they are assigned. Large institutions, with tens of thousands of employees, can also be roped in to facilitate distribution of IDs to their people, in controlled environments. It is also likely that as large government organisations are roped in to faciliate, some of them are likely to figure out ways to start linking their own employee and benefits documentation to these IDs, for their own effectiveness.
Still, and inevitably, this will raise some cynicism that the ID is a Trishanku object, floating around in a universe of non-use. This has to be addressed, but it must not be allowed to derail the distribution of the IDs themselves.
Acceptable proof of identity
Secondly, the UIDAI must launch a parallel effort to get as many institutions as possible to accept the identification it issues as proof of one's identity. There is no shortage of use cases for this - post offices, banks, the tens of thousands of security check points everywhere in the country, trains and airlines, and many others should be encouraged to accept the Unique ID as a substitute for the current forms of identification they now accept. Campaigns of advertising encouraging people to 'leave your PAN card safe at home, use UID to prove who you are' should be all over the place. Indeed, the Rs.100 crores set aside for this project is most needed to communicate the program, rather than actually initiate it.
Linking with schemes and programs
Whatever the gains on the above two counts, the UIDAI will have to deliver at least partially on its stated goal of making government programs work well. Here, what the Authority needs more than anything else is a working arrangement with a few states that ensures implementation of the proposed vision. A tightly coupled program which ensures that the IDs, once issued by the Authority, are seamlessly introduced into a few government schemes at the state-level, is needed. Karnataka is a good bet, since Nilekani himself heads the e-governance effort there, and Karnataka is already among the leading states when it comes to computerised administration.

The National ID certainly has the potential to transform the delivery of public services in important ways. But this is not necessarily its biggest benefit. The real value of such programs is to create a backbone upon which governance and economic development rest comfortably. The ID should be a catalyst for such change, rather than merely a tool for authentication or auditing government schemes. This is all the more important because there has been no proper debate on the need for the ID scheme, and consequently no preparation for the very real pitfalls that lie ahead.

Vote Smart India

The great land grab: India's war on farmers - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

JanLokpal Part 3 of 3

JanLokpal Part 2 of 3

JanLokpal Part 1 of 3

Murderers Eleven

Legal Information Institute of India

India’s Lead in Government 2.0 | USC Center on Public Diplomacy | Newswire – CPD Blog

Corruption : India's Growth Industry

US President Barack Obama's address to Indian Parliament

Legislator's Salary

Shaffi Mather: A new way to fight corruption | Video on TED.com

The Ideas of India

India: Police Organisation in Different States

India: Police Organisation in Different States

As on December 31, 2008

Accountability Initiative, India

What We Do

Union Budget 2010-2011

Parliamentary Committees

Gujarat: Copybook Expansion

PM Manmohan Singh @ First Annual Conference of Chief Secretaries

Compulsory Voting

Compulsory Voting

WHAT IS COMPULSORY VOTING?

WHICH COUNTRIES PRACTICE COMPULSORY VOTING?

LAWS, SANCTIONS & ENFORCEMENT

Happy New Year

Parliament in Winter Session 2009 (Nov 19th - Dec 22nd)

On 6 out of 21 days, Lok Sabha met for less than 2 hrs

Of 26 Bills planned for passage, only 14 were actually passed

In 34% cases, the inquiring MP was absent when the question was called in Lok Sabha

48% MPs in Lok Sabha did not participate in any Debate

Roadmap for Judicial Reforms

Blowing The Whistle - CVC Appointments

The Khaki must shine

India Fatalities

India Fatalities

India Fatalities, 2008

India Fatalities, 2007

India Fatalities, 2006

1994-2005(Data does not include fatalities in left-wing extremism)

NATIONAL ID SCHEME: Your identification, Please.

1994-2005
(Data does not include fatalities in left-wing extremism)