OPINION
This is in response to your repeated taunts on NDTV that the civil society must respond to the wanton killing by the Naxals. It appears that the interview was tailor made for getting the consent of the Cabinet for more firepower and airpower to combat the moist. The diabolic support of Arun Jaitly, be it by describing you an injured martyr, was designed to achieve his ambition through the support of the mining barons of the BJP ruled states.
As a member of society I hope I am being civil in disagreeing with you on your hard line approach against the innocent tribal. I also hope you will not find it too shocking for being accused of being largely responsible for the rise and growth of Naxalism, as the following happened on your watch as Finance Minister.
Is it not true that Naxalism grew exponentially in the last ten years to become the present menace? In fact you have yourself identified the time frame of the last ten years in your interview with NDTV.
Is it not true that the rise in popularity of Naxalism is also coincidental with the rise in iron ore mining profits which increased from around Rs.50 per tonne to over Rs. 5000 per tonne in the last ten years?
Is it not true that the map of Naxalism is also the map of the Indian Minerals. These minerals belong to the people of India but have been handed over to mining barons and corporate in a relationship of mutual benefit, more appropriately described as crony capitalism. It is for this reason that Arun Jaitly is your staunchest supporter because the state of our four state government ruled by BJP is dependent on the money from the mining mafia….
Is it not true that during your watch as Finance Minister for four and half years, corporate raked in a profit of over two lac crores through legal and illegal mining, mostly in the iron ore sector? How was this profit shared? Is it not true that during your entire tenure as FM the royalty on iron ore was not revised and remained at a ridiculous Rs.7 to Rs. 27/tonne (depending on the type and grade of iron ore) with the average of around Rs.15 per tonne.. This royalty was neither made ad valorem nor was it revised from year 2000 onwards when the international price of iron ore rose to dizzy levels.
Is it not true that the minerals are owned by the people of the State? Is a meager 0.5% royalty on iron ore profits adequate compensation to the owner of the resources? Would you sell your one crore property for Rs. 50,000?
Did you fulfill the oath that you took as Minister to abide by the Constitution, in particular Article 39(b) and (c) of the constitution which directs the government to use natural resources owned by the people of the country are used to subserve the common good?
Would the Naxal problem have been there if 25% of the mining profit was spent on the poor and the tribal living in the mining area and whose life was uprooted by the greedy corporate/ mining mafia with active connivance of the law enforcers and policy makers?
What prevented the government from nationalizing the iron ore mine industry and handing it over to a PSU or NMDC whose shares of Re 1/- was lapped at a premium of Rs.300 (30000% premium) and using the profit for the benefit of the people?
Are you aware that even a resource rich and affluent country like Australia with a low population base is imposing an additional 40% windfall tax on the mining profits? Can a poor country like India afford to forgo these windfall profits?
Will you reveal as to how many times you have defended public interest through PIL and how many times you have defended corporate interest during your professional career as a lawyer? The question is relevant because of your empathy for the corporate sector is in apparent conflict with that towards the toiling masses.
Is it wrong for the civil society to conclude that both as Home Minister and Finance Minister you have been protecting the corporate profiteers (by the first allowing them to loot the mineral wealth belonging to the people and now securing these mines for them) and not protecting the interest of the poor and tribal people who are victims of corporate
greed and crony capitalism of the political parties? You in particular should have known better having been a director of Vedanta Resources!
In your appearance on NDTV you talked about the two prong approach and one of them having been weakened. It is the prong of development which has been weakened and is non existent. The royalty collected is not sufficient to pay for the various types of direct damages done by the mining industry (health, environment, water, roads, rehabilitation etc) let alone the cost of security forces.
Is it not true that the killing of innocent security forces and tribal is the direct result of the policy of securing the mineral wealth for the corporate profiteers and political parties who share the loot?
It was shocking to know that you were more concerned about your CV falling short by a few months of completing five years as Finance Minister when you met your maker (refer the NDTV interview) than about the blood of the innocent that has been spilled on both sides as a consequence of corporate profiteering..
It is not surprising that all the State government which get reelected on the money of the mining mafia are interested in using air cover to make mining safe and profitable ever after. You should know better the role of money in elections after having managed to squeak past the post while the DMK MPs romped home with handsome margin. Mr Raja retained his portfolio!
What is at stake is the credibility of the State: that it is using force to benefit the mining mafia and that it has a vested interest in the profiteering of the mining mafia which is prospering because of crony capitalism.
To restore its credibility the Government should resume all the mines which in any case belong to the people and give a solemn pledge that a minimum of 25% of the mining profits will be used for the benefit of the local people. The solution is not only just one mandated by the Constitution. It is only after restoring its credibility that the State will have the right to act. That one hopes, will not be necessary because honest development based on the resources belonging to the people is the best contraceptive against the Maoist ideology. (One is happy to note that according to newspaper report the Mining Minister has made a similar proposal and not surprisingly facing resistance)
What happened Mr Chidambaram, you used to be a nice guy? You resigned over the Fair growth affair when you were not even guilty.
Life is not about arguing a brief in Court for money. It is about arguing for what is right. You have wrongly accused as being "clever nor being devious" (refer interview with NDTV), because we are not capable of it. We cannot argue the way you do. Your arguments in Parliament over the oil for food programme while shielding Reliance from being referred to the Pathak Committee were indeed "brilliant". Were you being clever or devious in your arguments? (Refer the book Reliance the Real Natwar written by this writer for deciding the issue) Please do not use the civil society as an excuse for your omissions and commissions. We have no vested interest except that what belongs to the people should go to the people and that innocents, whether the security forces or the people forced to join the Moist, should not die for corporate profits.. We are not powerful to tie the State governments with legal cases on police excesses. Those trying to uphold human right violations do so at considerable risk to their life and liberty and deserve our respect and not condemnation as misguided romantics.
On a personal note Sir, will you resign and argue my PIL before the High Court involving three lac crores of iron ore being gifted by the State to Posco and Arcelor mittal (as Palkhivala did to argue the Minerva Mill case). It will be difficult to lose the case because law, facts and most important you will be on the same side.
If you agree to do so, Sir, I am sure He will give you far more credit than He would for the extra six months that you missed out as Finance Minister!
In case you are interested I will send you a copy of the petition.
Looking forward to hearing from you. For far too long you have been shifting the blame on the civil society.
We too need answers.
With warm regards
A K Agarwal, Bangalore
Genuine police reforms needed
Pushkar Raj
Following independence, one institution that did not get adequate attention was the police. Much of the system was adopted as it was during the British raj. Police were placed in the constitution under State subjects, and various States made some minor changes in their policing system while keeping the core of 1861 Police Act. The result has been inefficient and unaccountable police that most of the people distrust and dislike.
The opportunity to change all this came in the form of the Supreme Court judgement in Prakash Singh and others vs Union of India and others case in 2006 when the Court directed that all the States and the Centre should implement six directives pending the enactment of new police legislation. The court implied that the new State police legislation must keep in view the basic tenet of political non-interference in transfer, posting and promotion, security of tenure of officials, separation of law and order from investigation and accountability. Twelve states have passed new police legislation so far. However, these are only minutely better than the 1861 Police Act. In new State police laws, every directive of the court has been diluted – new laws do not democratise the police and it remains a force rather than a service.
The centre has been maintaining that policing is the state subject and it cannot do much to influence the State police legislation. However, when came to the National Capital Territory of Delhi, the Home Ministry came up with the draft Delhi Police (Amendment) Bill 2010. It became apparent that the Centre has also not been serious on genuine police reforms in the country, notwithstanding the Prime Minister and Home Minister’s assertions to the contrary. If it was, it would not come out with cut and paste’ draft legislation for Delhi – part of which is in the form of an amendment in the 1978 Delhi Police Act and part of it in form of the Home Ministry’s office memorandums. Taken together, both these documents fall far short of compliance with the Supreme Court directives or any steps toward better policing. It will certainly not bring any quality change in the performance of the police and the citizens of Delhi will continue to suffer unresponsive and unaccountable policing.
The Draft makes no mention of a separate State Security Commission (UTSC) for the NCT of Delhi. Instead, a Union Territories Security Commission has recently been established by the MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs – government of India) through an official memorandum. This Commission shall have jurisdiction over all the seven Union Territories in India – including Delhi. One does not understand how this will be able to address all local policing issues originating in all the UTs. The Supreme Court directives stated that the Commission should be composed of the political leadership, bureaucrats and members of the civil society. However the UTSC is composed of almost all bureaucrats, with no political leadership and independent members whose selection criterion is also not stated. Finally, this Commission has no obligation to prepare an annual report and present it before the state legislature so that the general public know about its functioning. Will it be another on paper and non – functional body at the cost of tax payer’s money?
The composition, powers and proposed functioning of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) for Delhi also leaves much to be desired. According to the Supreme Court directives, Police Complaints Authorities are to be set up at the State level and the District level. These bodies will inquire into allegations of serious misconduct of the police. The Home Ministry memorandum only creates a State level PCA. There is no mention of the District level complaint authority. Given the fact that there is a complaint authority. Given the fact that there is a complaint of misbehaviour against one out of every ten policemen in the capital, a single authority is unlikely to serve any useful purpose.
The Supreme Court stated that PCA should be headed by a retired judge at the State and District level, but this is not the case with the PCA envisaged for Delhi. The memorandum states that it could be headed by a bureaucrat as well. It is difficult to understand how a person with no judicial knowledge could do justice to complaints against the police. The Authority is to have five members and there are no objective criterions set down for their selection. This exposes the Authority to the risk of arbitrary appointments. Furthermore, the recommendation of the Authority will not be binding. This will defeat the very purpose of setting up such an Authority as people will have little faith in its effectiveness.
There are other serious flaws in the proposed legislation. For example, in flagrant violation of the Supreme Court requirement of two years tenure for police officials, the duration of tenure of certain senior officers like the Joint Commissioner and the Station House Officer has been kept at one year only. Secondly, in previous legislation, only the Police Commissioner could appoint special Police Officers but now even DCP will have the power to do so. This means there will be a number of inadequately qualified, untrained and unskilled persons who will use the policing power and, in all probability, will misuse that power as borne out from the past experience. Thirdly, the proposed Amendment Act removes the duty of police officers to report warrant-less arrests to the concerned District Magistrate/Sub – Divisional Magistrate. Due to this amendment, the police will have a free hand in unnecessary harassing petty offenders, by detaining them beyond the statutorily permissible 24 hours.
In a nutshell the centre has failed the people of the capital miserably. It has the opportunity to provide the people of the National Capital Region with an efficient and accountable police that could have served as a model for the rest of the country. Unless there are substantial changes in the proposed Delhi police legislation, better and democratic policing will remain merely a dream.
Author is a chief editor of PUCL
Comments