Thursday 30 January 2014

Madam Soniaji, please check facts & take back your RTI brag



"We are the Party that is responsible for the historic RTI Act. We pursued this because we believe that ultimately in transparency lies the solution to the problem. The RTI Act is the single most important reason why citizens of our country feel empowered to fight corruption,” stated Congress President Sonia Gandhi at AICC meeting held on 17th January 2014. 
This patently wrong claim has been made on earlier occasions too by various stalwarts of the Congress party and the UPA.  RTI is thus becoming yet another example of modern history being distorted through orchestrated disinformation. The fact is that Congress Party is not the first entity that either ushered in or struggled for the Right to Information (RTI) / Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation.
 The credit on this count should go to all entities across the political spectrum that pitched for this transparency initiative over the last several decades. 
The credit for being prime-mover of transparency legislation should perhaps go to late G. C. Bhattacharya of Democratic Socialist Party, who had moved The Freedom of Information Bill, 1983 in Rajya Sabha way back in December 1983, when Soniaji had not entered politics. 
Moving this private members’ bill, Mr. Bhattacharya had stated: “Sir, I beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for certain agencies to ensure freedom of having access to and obtaining public information for the citizen and for matters connected therewith.”
On 22nd December 1983, he had also moved another anti-corruption bill, The Civil Servants (Disclosure and Scrutiny of Financial Assets) Bill, 1983. 
We can leave aside the efforts of journalistic fraternity and other public affairs professionals to avoid mix-up with the Freedom of Press. 
The FOI subject has figured in both the houses of Parliament over the years. It is here pertinent to recall a Rajya Sabha question put by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Ashwani Kumar and late Pramod Mahajan during the Rajiv Gandhi regime.
In a three-part question dated 14 August 1986, the MPs had asked what steps the Government is taking to grant freedom of information in the country. And the stock official reply was that “The information is being collected and will be laid on the Table of the House.”
Another significant milestone in RTI domain was the setting up of an inter-ministerial task force (IMTF) in the late eighties or nineties when the Congress was not in power at the Centre.
Answering a question on IMTF in Rajya Sabha in September 1991, the then Minister of State for Home Affairs, M.M. Jacob, said: “The Inter-Ministerial Task Force which was set up to go into the entire question regarding Right to Information has since submitted its Report.”
He continued: “Its recommendations reflect on the one hand, the need for a more purposeful information dissemination system and on the other a close and comprehensive look on issues relating to security clarification and privacy. In view of the importance and complexity of the subject, formulation of definite views on the issues involved in the matter would necessarily take time.”
It is here pertinent to note that the Congress Government under the Prime Ministership of P.V. Narasimha, did not let the idea of RTI bloom into a law. 
The turning point, however, came in June 1996 when the 13-party United Front coalition unveiled its common minimum programme (CMP). 
As put by CMP, “The Official Secrets Act will be reviewed and amended in tune with the need for openness and transparency in governance. A Bill on Freedom of Information will be introduced within six months to give the people access to information at all levels.”
In January, 1997 the United Front Government set up a Working Group on Right to Information and Transparency to examine the feasibility and need for a full-fledged law. In its report submitted in May 1997, it recommended a draft Freedom of Information Bill. Soon thereafter, the Centre discussed the draft Freedom of Information Act with the States at Chief Ministers’ conference. 
Rest is history. Several States seized the initiative and enacted their own laws. Goa was perhaps the first State to enact RTI law. As put by the NDA Government’s reply to a question raised in Rajya Sabha in December 2000, “The Government of Tamil Nadu, Goa, Rajasthan and Maharashtra have enacted the Right to Information Act”. Of these, only the Goa Right to Information Act, 1997 and Rajasthan Right to Information Act, 2000 contain provisions for imposing penalties on persons who fail to furnish information within the time specified or furnish any false information.”
In all eight States - Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Goa and Madhya Pradesh - had enacted their own RTI laws prior to the UPA Government enacting RTI Act, 2005 in 2005.  UPA time and again fails to mention the fact that it did this by merely repealing the BJP-led NDA’s Freedom of Information Act 2002.  
When RTI wave gained momentum after the emergence of the United Front, the Congress Party did not throw its weight behind RTI. The historic resolutions passed at Congress Plenary Session held in August 1997 thus make no mention about RTI/FOI. 
A lot more can be written about the half-hearted implementation of the RTI Act by the UPA Government. It is better to reserve other facts for another occasion when someone again tries to walk away with a claim that is contrary to the facts.  
                                                ends



Saturday 11 January 2014

Tear gas story
                 
           Industrial licensing throws up another bizarre case 

It can happen only in India that embraced industrial liberalization in mid-1991 and later underwent many reforms:  A leading company applies for an industrial licence that has both civilian and defence applications. The key regulator says it should not be given licence as it is an arm. The Defence Ministry says the product in question is a dual use item, which does not require a defence industrial licence.
The irony is that the inter-agency discussion over the application has overlooked the fact the company is already manufacturing and marketing the same product to different Government entities for over two years. The opposing regulator had earlier approved the product from the technical angle! 
The company has flaunted its unlicensed product on its website and in the annual report. It says it acquired the technology from a Defence laboratory. The only other manufacturer, a government entity, is producing the item for decades without a licence.
 An inter-ministerial Industrial Licensing Committee (ILC) discussed the case twice last year but deferred it for want of comments from all relevant authorities.  It is yet to take a fresh call on the application.
According to authoritative source, ILC has, however, not yet been informed of the fact that the company is already producing the item for which a licence has been sought. And this fact is already available in public domain. It would thus be a case of post-facto approval, if it is given. 
The product, that is subject of the licensing row, is the tear gas shell, dubbed as mob dispersion device (MDD). The applicant is BSE-listed Premier Explosives Limited (PEL), a company that also produces propellants for the Space Department.
The bureaucratic rigmarole in this case started in March 2012 when PEL applied for industrial licence to manufacture one million MDD/year in Nalgonda district of Andhra Pradesh.  In the same month, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) turned down PEL’s plea for trial manufacture of tear gas shells .
The Explosives Section (EC) of the Department of Industrial Policy (DIPP) has agreed with PESO. EC believes that MDD is used for offence or defence. A MDD is fired with a weapon. It thus comes under the definition of ‘ammunition’ covered under Arms Act, 1959.
An authoritative source quoted EC as telling ILC that “it is desirable not to permit manufacture of such ammunition in the factory licensed under the Explosives Rules 2008.” 
The Department of Defence Production (DDP), on the other hand, has not shown any such concern. It has stated twice - in May 2012 and May 2013,that the manufacture of MDD does not require a defence industrial licence.
ILC, which considered PEL’s application twice in 2013 (in June and October) has been deferring a decision by harping on the fact the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Andhra Pradesh Government have not yet given their comments on the application. 
PESO-EC combine’s argument might not cut ice with the case at ILC as PEL manufacturing tear gas hand grenades, which are not fired with a weapon. Moreover, these grenades cannot be thrown back by the rioters at the police as they burn while releasing the tear gas. 
Unlike conventional tear gas shells that use certain chemicals, PEL’s product is based on oleo-resin (OR), a concentrated extract from red chillies.
PEL has listed several advantages of its MDD. It says: “The OR laden smoke causes irritation to eyes, nose and throat of the persons inhaling it. It will make the person to quickly retreat from the site. The OR vapour are not soluble in water. The wet cloth or water cannot be used as a defence by the mob. The irritation caused by OR laden smoke, however, like the effect of hot chillies is temporary and goes away.”
Another advantage of PEL’s MDDs is that OR is more irritating than ammonia gas, which only causes eyes to burn. There is no permanent damage from OR gas if a person inhales it. The company affirms its product is not lethal. 
PEL’s annual report for 2012-13 says: “our tear gas shells, introduced into market in 2011-12, have been finding wider acceptance by various government agencies, clocking higher revenues.”
Prior to PEL’s foray into MDD business, Border Security Force’s (BSF’s) Tear Smoke Unit (TSU), Tekanpur in Madhya Pradesh was the sole producer of a variety of tear gas shells. It operates under administrative control of MHA.
TSU stared its operations in mid-seventies with technology sources from Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Ordnance Factories. Prior to setting up of TSU, police forces relied on imported tear gas shells for controlling unruly mobs.  The Unit, which has several innovative products to its credit, presently has expertise in manufacturing 60 types of munitions.

                                   ends