Who will humbly ask CJI whether he is exempted from Code of Conduct?

                           (Edited Picture of PM with CJI. Image Courtesy: PIB) 

                                             

Did Chief Justice of India (CJI) T. S. Thakur breach the Judiciary’s own voluntary code of conduct (CoC) when he ridiculed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Independence Day (ID) speech?

The answers to this and certain other prickly questions on judicial accountability lie in the court of CJI. And national enlightenment on these issues can come only if civil society files public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court (SC).  A Big If indeed.

To best of my knowledge, Vocal NGOs have not yet implored CJI to give verdict on applicability of CoC on him? Has PIL industry petitioned SC to admonish the Executive-Legislature combine to not delay further enactment of judicial accountability law?  

Clarity on this count can also emerge if Modi Government advises the President to seek SC’s opinion on these issues. Another Big If!  

A Layman’s reading of CoC named ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’ (RVJL) shows that Justice Thakur prima facie violated two of its 16 principles when he derided PM’s speech.  These are: 1) “A Judge shall not enter into public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination.” 2) “Every Judge must, at all times, be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of the high office he occupies and the public esteem in which that office is held.”

Another occasion when CJI deviated from former principle was during the last winter season. Justice Thakur first endorsed #OddEven scheme of Delhi Government outside the Court. He later trashed PIL against the scheme, which rides roughshod over citizens’ right to earn one’s livelihood and physically challenged persons’ right to travel safely. After all, these rights can be interpreted as right to life just as right to fresh air is interpreted to rationalize the scheme.    

Civil Society might well dismiss all this as nitpicking of no consequence in the absence of statutory CoC.

SC had unanimously adopted RVJL/CoC in its full court meeting held on 7^th May 1997. In April 2015, Chief Justices’ Conference discussed agenda item ‘judicial values – a need for re-examination’ and tersely “resolved to reiterate the Declaration of Restatement of Judicial Values, 1997.”

Notwithstanding this reiteration, RVJL enforcement lacks transparency.  Instances of it being invoked against deviant judges are rare. RVJL is not even mentioned on SC’s website!

Compare this with Pakistan apex court. The latter’s website not only hosts its CoC but also disclosed the fact that it has been notified through a gazette.

It is apt to note that Law Commission, in its report on lapsed Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2005 submitted in January 2006, recommended that CoC to be issued by Judicial Council under the proposed law should be published in the Gazette of India.

LC also recommended that “till such time as the Judicial Council comes to be constituted under the proposed Bill of 2005 and such Judicial Council publishes a Code of Conduct, the Bill must provide that the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’ adopted by the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated May 7th, 1997 shall be treated as the Code of Conduct for the purposes of the proposed law.”
The Report continued: “It should also contain a provision that the Code of Conduct could be modified from time to time by the Judicial Council by amendments that could be notified in the Official Gazette.”

Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) echoed LC’s concern for RVJL in its 4th report on Ethics in Governance submitted in January 2007. Under the chapter ‘Ethical Framework for the Judiciary’, ARC observed: “mere prescription of a Code of Conduct is not an end in itself. Along with the Code of Conduct, a mechanism for enforcing the code needs to be evolved. It would be desirable to designate a senior Judge of the Supreme Court as the ‘Judicial Values Commissioner’ (JVC).”

ARC added:  JVC should be empowered to enquire into cases of violation of the Code of Conduct and report the matter to CJI for taking action. JVC should have jurisdiction over the judges of the Supreme Court, and members of other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. A similar institution should also be constituted at the state level.

Though UPA Cabinet accepted ARC recommendation relating to JVC, it is not known whether the Government communicated it to SC and if so, whether JVC was notified. Google search for Judicial Value Commissioner throws up disappointing result.

When UPA returned to Power in 2009, it decided to substitute lapsed Judges (Inquiry) Bill with the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (JSAB), 2010. The Bill incorporated RVJL into proposed judicial standards.

A proposed standard that has direct relevance to Justice Thakur’s dig at PM’s ID speech is worth pondering. It reads as: “no Judge shall make unwarranted comments against conduct of any Constitutional or statutory authority or statutory bodies or statutory institutions or any chairperson or member or officer thereof, in general, or at the time of hearing matters pending or likely to arise for judicial determinations.”

This stipulation is of no consequence at present as JSAB lapsed with the dissolution of 15^th Lok Sabha in May 2014. NDA Government has disclosed its intent to resurrect the Bill but has not unveiled the revised bill, factoring in suggestions of different stakeholders including Parliament Standing Committee (PSC).

In its report on JSAB submitted during August 2011, PSC recommended: “The Committee feels that Clause 3(2)(f) should be expanded by specifically mentioning that judges should restrain themselves from making unwarranted comments against other Constitutional / statutory bodies/institutions/ persons in open Court while hearing cases.”

The urgency for independent oversight of judicial standards can be driven home well by recalling what legendary Leftist MP, late Bhupesh Gupta, stated during August 1972 while participating in a debate on The Constitution (13^th Amendment) Bill, 1972.

Mr Gupta observed: “The moment you (judges) sit on the Bench you do not become angels or divine creatures. You see, you are either taken from the Bar or you are recruited directly or promoted from below or some such method is there. Therefore, you have all the virtues and vices associated with others. You carry them with you, you carry your past with you, you carry your qualifications and attendant disqualifications, you carry all of them with you.”

Cow Protection row Overshadows Rational Policies

               (Image courtesy: Central Institute for Research on Cattle)

“There are allegedly hundreds of Gosadans and Goshalas in the country, which actually do not exist, in whose names people collect money and eat it up,” stated Bollywood doyen, Prithviraj Kapoor, while participating in a discussion on Gosadans and Goshalas (cow shelters) in Rajya Sabha way back in March 1958.

Mr. Kapoor's comment elicited a wisecrack from the then Deputy Minister for Agriculture, M.V. Krishnappa: “Since cow is a dumb creature so many people are doing so many things in the name of cow.”

Fifty-eight years later, the issue of dubious people masquerading as cow vigilante has now been raised in a similar way by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

In his maiden townhall with the public held last week, Mr. Modi stated: “I get so angry at those who are into the Gau-Rakshak business. A Gau-Bhakt (cow devotee) is different, Gau Seva (cow protection) is different. I have seen that some people are into crimes all night and wear the garb of Gau Rakshaks in the day.”

It is not known whether Mr. Modi, his bete noire of Chara Gohtala (fodder scam) fame, Lalu Yadav and other leaders have read the Parliamentary and Constituent Assembly debates on all that went wrong in the name of cow protection since the Independence. But what we all know is that the stringency and violence in the name of cow protection is nothing new. It has occurred under all regimes.

The obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) shown by a section of media especially TV channels’ on exposing publicity-hungry Gau-Rakshaks is relatively new phenomenon. This is diametrically opposite to its stance on Kuta-Rakshaks who pitch for safeguarding stray dogs at the cost of human lives. Though both types of vigilante group directly or indirectly contribute to human tragedies, yet media targets only Gau-Rakshaks. The media overlooks or publishes as space fillers tragic news about Kuta-Rakshaks'-induced killing of babies and kids by dogs. 

Media activist overlook the fact that stray dogs menace is far bigger and serious than cattle menace and there has to be zero-tolerance for dubious Kuta-Rakshaks who facilitate death and injuries to lakhs of Indians every year. Stray dogs outnumber stray cows in the ratio of 3.24:1. Number of stray dogs was 17138349 (1.71 crore) and number of stray cattle was 5287767 (52.87 lakh), according to 2012 Livestock Survey.

If fundamental rights-obsessed media is allowed to have its way, it would ensure that cow meat is served liberally and dog is pampered and protected on every street across the country. Why doesn’t it pitch for substitution of cow meat with dog meat, which is a delicacy? Why doesn’t it demand translocation of some stray dogs in jungles to give justice to animals like leopards that frequently enter human habitations to feast on dogs?  

 For one-track media, reading the Constitution, different state laws on cow preservation, different judgments and related policies for rational debate is an anathema.

Reverting back to Parliament debates, a notable instance is the marathon discussion that followed the bloodbath in Delhi after violent cow protection agitation outside Parliament on 7th November 1966.

Leftist MP Bhupesh Gupta drew Parliament’s attention to the role played by RSS magazine, Organiser, in fueling the agitation. Drawing MPs attention to the weekly issue dated 7th November 1966 circulated a few days before the agitation, Mr. Gupta stated: “Read the editorial here and see the picture of the cow in tears or the mother in tears. Well, I am an agnostic and an atheist, but I too have some sentiments. Now, the sentiments of our people are likely to be aroused in the matter of cow protection.”

Another MP Niren Ghosh stated: “This Government can easily come forward with a Bill to ban cow slaughter, but they cannot come forward with a Bill to ban man slaughter. So I demand ut a judicial inquiry should be held into the entire affair, into all aspects of the matter including the shootings, killings and lathi charges that have taken place, so that truth could be established and these things might not be repeated.”    

Participating in another discussion on cow protection during April 1970, K. P. Subramania Menon stated: “we in India have also been accustomed to worshipping pigs? The pig, the Varaha, is one of the ten avatharas, and there are so many temples devoted to the Varaha. So, I would like to know whether the Government will think of bringing forward a legislation prohibiting pig slaughter along with cow slaughter.”

The mother of all cow agitations is the varied interpretation of Constitution’s Directive Principles of State Policy. Its Article 48 says: “The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”

Add to this the fact that the power to legislate on cow slaughter/protection comes under the domain of the State List. State Legislatures can thus enact laws on this subject under Article 246(3) of the Constitution.

All States and Union Territories except six currently have laws that either ban or restrict cow slaughter. The exceptions are Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Meghalaya, Mizoram & Nagaland and Union Territory of Lakshadweep.

The members of the Constituent Assembly differed on drafting of this Article 48. On 19th November 1949, Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena, for instance, contended: “Prohibition of cow slaughter throughout the country can by itself fire the imagination of the common man in India. I wish the ban on the slaughter of cow, which is the Kama Dhenu the mother of plenty, had been made absolute, and given a place in the Fundamental Rights.”

Rev. J. J. M. Nichols Roy countered: “There would be a great deal of disturbance and unrest if this article would be interpreted to mean that all cattle should be prevented from being slaughtered at all times and under all circumstances. This would act against the fundamental rights. I think that this is not the meaning of this article.”

Nehru Government first interpreted Article 48 way back on 20th December 1950. It did so in a circular titled ‘Imposing a complete ban on the slaughter of cattle, raises legal and economic questions’ issued to the States. The Union Agriculture Ministry's circular stated: “what is really intended is not a total prohibition of all cattle slaughter but prohibition of slaughter of cows, and calves and other milch and draught cattle only. The directive is thus subordinate, and in a sense, ancillary to two important provisions in the article, viz., (a) preserving and improving the breeds of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle, and (b) prohibiting the slaughter of the above. Milch and draught cattle would cover only cattle capable of giving milk or of being employed for draught purposes or in other words ‘Useful’ cattle. A total ban on the slaughter of all cattle is thus not an obligation imposed on the States by the Constitution.”

Explained the adverse effects of the total ban on the slaughter of cattle, the Centre hoped that the States thus do not impose legal restriction on the slaughter of useless and unproductive cattle.

The Circular concluded: “States which have already passed legislation totally banning slaughter are requested to take early steps to reconsider it. Without first providing a sufficient number of Gosadans to cater for all the unproductive and useless animals, it is inadvisable to impose a total ban on the slaughter of cattle.”

Article 48 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court too in its judgments on slaughter of cows and other animals.

In its perhaps its first verdict dated 23rd April 1958, the Apex Court ruled: “we uphold and declare that the Bihar Act (Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1955 ) in so far as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male and female, is constitutionally valid and we hold that, in so far as it totally prohibits the slaughter of she-buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle and buffalo), without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness, it infringes the rights of the petitioners under Art. 19 (1) (g) and is to that extent void.” 

The Court gave similar ruling with regard to relevant cow protection laws of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

Indira Gandhi regime articulated Supreme Court verdicts in a statement to Parliament on 3rd September 1976 (Emergency era). As put by the Statement, “The Supreme Court has interpreted the effect of article 48 of the Constitution relating to prohibition of slaughter of cows and its progeny, as follows :—

(a) That a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes, male and female, is quite reasonable and is in consonance with the Directive Principles as laid down in article 48 ;

b) That a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes, or breeding bulls or working bullocks, as long as they are capable of being used as milch or draught cattle, is also' reasonable and valid; and

(c) That a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocks, after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public and is invalid.”

When Janata Government (in which BJP in its earlier avatar of Jan Sangh was a force to reckon with) came to power, it also articulated constitutional and legal position on the issue whether the Centre intends to bring a law to ban slaughter of cows. In an answer to Parliament question on 20th December 1978, the then Agriculture Minister, Surjit Singh Barnala, stated: “The subjective of preservation, protection and improvement of stock comes under Entry 15 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and as such this is a State subject. Therefore the question of the Central Government bringing forward a comprehensive Bill in this regard does not arise.”

Notwithstanding all governmental and judicial interpretations of Article 48, the politics of cow protection remains an emotive topic. It is here pertinent to mention about a national committee set up by Congress Government to go into entire gamut of cow protection in 1967. As put by an official statement dated 5th January 1967, “Government have also decided to set up a Committee which will be composed of representatives of the Central Government, the State Governments and the Sarvadaliya Goraksha Mah-abhiyan Samiti and some experts. The Committee will go into the question of cow protection, examine inter alia all the suggestions of the Goraksha Samiti on this subject, and having considered the matter in all its aspects namely, constitutional, legal, economic and others, present to Government appropriate practical recommendations for their consideration. The suggestions of the Samiti which the Committee will thus consider, will include the one for a total ban on the slaughter of cow and its progeny.”

The Committee, which was supposed to give its report within six months of its formation, perhaps never submitted it. Participating in a Rajya Sabha debate on the issue during December 1978, S. W. Dhabe stated: “The Committee was appointed in 1967. The Committee did not give a report...Thirteen years have gone. The Committee had to go into all aspects of cow protection in this country—constitutional, legal and economic. In spite of this, such an important matter is by-passed. I will appeal to the Government to make a statement in this House. Shri Barnala should also persuade the Prime Minister that it is no use making a show of it. They can issue executive orders or guidelines to the Kerala and West Bengal Governments to save the situation.”

The analysis shows that our leaders and their supporters have paid more attention to cow politics and less to implementation of policies that can benefit cows, dogs and other animals, apart from providing peace and security to public.

It is here pertinent to cite a rational policy that neither politicians nor the dominant media like to discuss, leave aside demanding its implementation. The policy is: National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement on Environment and Development that was released by Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MOEF&CC) in June 1992.

It says: “The overriding impact of adverse demographic pressures on our resources and ecosystems due to poverty and overpopulation of man and livestock (cow included) has to be highlighted. Unless there is a curb on population growth and even a reduction of such populations and a corresponding improvement in land use policies, the current trend of over-exploitation and ecological degradation is not likely to improve.”

The policy paralysis is manifested in ugly sight of cows, dogs, pigs and rag-pickers rummaging through waste dumps across the country. 

#PoMoneModi = Shame on all for Tribals’ Plight

(A cattle shed that served as model residential school for tribals in Kerala for 13 years. Image Courtesy: CAG)

Does #PoMoneModi (get lost Modi) campaign actually reflect hurt Malayalee pride? Would this campaign have trended on Twitter, had PM quoted official guesstimates on infant mortality rates (IMRs) for all tribes that would put Somalia in better light than India?   

Does #PoMoneModi embody certain groups’ deep-rooted hatred for Prime Minister Narendra Modi? (He loves to operate as a star campaigner for BJP and thus provide fodder for anti-Modi campaigns! http://bit.ly/1Sh9m8s). Was #PoMoneModi driven by argumentative Indian’s tendency to get into debate without doing home work?

The answer to these issues would become clear if we dig out bitter truth about the plight of tribals in Kerala and elsewhere across the country. And the unpleasant facts would equally expose the Centre where BJP is carrying on with UPA’s policy paralysis on tribals. The facts would also shame Kerala Government and those who like to shoot from the hip.   

Let us start with the crux of #PoMoneModi. IMR in Kerala is 12 per 1000 live births, as compared to national average of 40, according to latest Sample Registration System (SRS) 2013 under which health indicators (HIs) data is collected by Office of Registrar General of India.  SRS does not collect data for scheduled tribes (STs) or scheduled castes (STs) as separate groups. 

Mr. Modi did not contest this or any of the other health indicators for the God’s own country that are better than national average. Nobody can deny the fact Kerala is role model for other states as far as human development indicators are concerned.

In spite of this, a deliberate attempt was made to twist Mr. Modi’s observation that “infant mortality rate among the scheduled tribe community in Kerala is worse than Somalia” as comparing Kerala with Somalia. Such blatant distortion can only be done by persons who are allergic to facts or by ones who have inane dislike for Mr. Modi.

Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy cashed in on anti-Modi campaign instead of basing his letters on what precisely PM stated at an election rally in Kerala. In his letter to PM, CM reportedly posed “Yet, you (PM) compared Kerala to Somalia that is reeling under poverty and internal strife. Is it not a shame for the prime minister to pronounce that a state like Somalia exists in the country?”

In fact, Mr. Chandy should be ashamed for distorting PM’s controversial statement that can neither be disproved nor proved as we realize this later in this column.

Mr. Modi, of course, should have avoided articulating ex-CM V.S. Achuthanandan’s views on plight of Kerala tribals. After visiting Attapadi where over 30 children died of anaemia and malnutrition, he reportedly told correspondents: “The UDF government, by its continued neglect of the pathetic condition of the Tribals of Attapadi, is turning the heartland into a Somalia type situation.”

In the perceptions war, Achuthanandan is an insider in Kerala and his statements thus don’t hurt Malayalee pride.  Mr. Modi, on the other, is much as an outsider for Keralites as for Biharis!

The High Level Committee (HLC) on tribals set up PMO during UPA regime has echoed Achuthanandan anguish without drawing comparison with Somalia.

Prof. Virginius Xaxa-chaired HLC, which submitted its report to NDA Government on 29^th May 2014, says: “Attapadi is a stark reminder of how forgotten tribal communities can become and what contexts of direness are produced by extreme poverty, remoteness and the non-provision of services by an administration.”

It adds: “At a public hearing in Attapadi, speaker after speaker spoke of the distance between the dwellings of Kurumba tribals and the ration shop, the paucity of minor irrigation projects that could ensure drinking water and irrigation to the tribal community, the inaccessibility to remote tribal villages and the problem brought on by drought. One issue that was raised was about forest-dwelling communities which have had a sudden shift in their nutrition status after rules that have been made which prevent killing of animals without providing them with alternatives that would make up for the loss of nourishment.”

Why no #PoMoneModi campaigner has attacked HLC, whose report is available on the websites of few NGOs? The campaigners also turned blind eye to the fact Modi Government has not yet made the report public, leave aside taking any decision on its recommendations that envisage a new deal for all tribals.

There is no latest, official HI data on Kerala tribals. What is available is woefully outdated data that cannot form the basis of #PoMoneModi.

The Union Government’s latest ‘Statistical Profile of Scheduled Tribes in India 2013’ (SPSTI) quotes data collected under National Family Health Survey (NFHS)–3, conducted by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in 2005-06. NFHS-4 data on Kerala tribals is not yet available in public domain.

According SPSTI, IMR in STs was 62.1, as compared to 66.4 in scheduled castes. The State-wise IMR Estimates (based on 2001 census) show that IMR for Kerala tribals at 60 as compared to national average IMR of 84 for STs.

Even HLC has relied on outdated NFHS-3 and Census 2001 data to focus on tribal IMR and other health indicators. HCL felt that IMR and child mortality rates for tribals were “most likely to be underestimates.”

HLC has thus recommended that “one percent of the total budget for the Scheduled Tribe population (TSP) should be allocated to the generation of reliable, timely, and relevant segregated data on Scheduled Tribes population, from the local to national level. This will provide the crucial instrument – the facts – necessary to guide program managers, policy makers and the Scheduled Tribe population itself.”

Neither PM nor #PoMoneModi brigade nor Kerala CM felt the acute need for reliable, timely data on tribals in their battle for brownie points.

Lack of latest and credible data becomes evident from the official report on ‘brainstorming consultations on convergence of resources for tribal development’ organized by Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MTA) on 13^th December 2014.

In the report, S.B. Agnihotri, Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, makes a strong case for tracking each and every infant mortality among tribals to understand the causes of death and thus plan specific remedies to reduce IMR.

The Report quotes him as saying “even if we consider IMR to be 80 per 1000 children born, we are looking at 80x200, i.e. 16000 deaths every month through the country. Tracking 16,000 deaths is more effective than trying to track 24 lakh births.”

The report quotes an unnamed participant as stating “tracking 98 deaths vis-à-vis 1000 births is easier.”

The crucial point to note here is that one official meeting has recorded two IMR guesstimates for India that are higher than 72 for Somalia! This figure was released in March 2014 in the report on the Somaliland Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS). It was carried out in 2011 by Somali Government in partnership with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

The non-existence of timely and reliable data on national IMR and tribal IMR for each State suggests #PoMoneModi is nothing but political cacophony.  

Prime Minister or his advisors might well have relied on an authoritative 2008 study/book titled ‘Tribal Health and Medicine in Kerala’ by N. Viswanathan Nair. Dr. Nair is former Director of State Government’s Kerala Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (KIRTADS).  This study gives bone-chilling IMR data for Kerala tribals. Though this data is outdated, it might rationalize Mr. Modi’s comment. It is, however, for PM’s office to disclose source of such data that led him to compare plight of Kerala tribals with that of Somali people.

A major finding of Dr. Nair’s study is that IMR of Kerala tribals vary from one economic category to another. This fact should have acted as restrain for self-styled champions of Malayalee pride from hurling slurs on PM.   

At the election rally, Mr. Modi was only raking up the larger issue of neglect of tribals by State Government. A lot has been said and reported on this subject by experts for years.  Why this wealth of unpleasant information did not hurt Malayalee pride all these years? Why this did rouse in campaigners the desire to fight for tribals is difficult to understand?

Research studies on plight of tribals in Kerala available in cyberspace are enough to hurt pride of any Indian, if not give sleepless nights to Kerala CM. Here is a sample that should serve as a wake-up call for Mr. Chandy.

Start with Kerala Home Department-commissioned study titled ‘Impact of Janamaithri Suraksha (community policing) Project on the Safety/Security of the Tribal People in Kerala’. It was prepared by Kochi-based The Research Institute, Rajagiri College of Social Sciences in March 2015.

The study observes: “The situations of children in many of the tribal colonies are found to be very pathetic. They have been facing problems like; poverty, malnutrition, school dropouts, mental and physical illness, etc.”

Listing a few case stories, the study says: “A Janamaithri officer from Kozhikode district narrated a heartening story of a group of tribal children aged 1-12 years gathered in a colony premise without adequate food and cloths. It was so dismal to note that they were eating mud out of sheer hunger. The health condition of the children was very feeble too.”

It adds: “Many studies show that, even after sixty years of formation of the state, tribals continue as one of the most marginalized community within the state, the post globalized developmental projects and developmental dreams of the state has

again made the deprivation of the tribals of Kerala and the developmental divide

has increased between the tribal and non-tribal in the state.”

The study has put on record the fact that the pitiable situation of the scheduled tribes has been cashed in on by Left Wing Extremists (LWEs).

Similar observation about tribals has been made in a paper titled ‘Morbidity Pattern of Tribes in Kerala’ published by IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science in April 2016.

Noting that “conditions of tribes in Kerala are distressing,” the Paper says: “They are caught in the vicious circle of poverty coupled with malnutrition, morbidity and mortality. A study conducted on the basis of Multidimensional poverty index by( Richard Scaria et al 2013) in Attapady Palakkad among Irular, Mudugar and Kurumbar tribes show that majority of tribes lies in the category of severe poverty i.e., tribes in Attappady are affected in more than 50% deprivation indicators.”

The Paper adds: “More over pregnant women and lactating mothers were found to be suffering from chronic malnutrition and anemia leading to high infant mortality rates (Dr Iqbal et al 2013).”

According to a CAG report on Kerala’s  General and Social Sector presented to state assembly during June 2014, “A survey covering the children in the age group of zero to 72 months in four Grama Panchayaths 43 was conducted (2012-13) by District Administration (under UNICEF assistance). Data collected and analysed by survey on 1,855 births in four selected Grama Panchayaths revealed that the infant mortality rate was as high as 41.47 among tribal population. In these circumstances, maintenance of separate database for the tribal population is necessary for the appropriate and timely intervention by the Health department.”

The report also cites 13-year delay in setting up a residential school for tribals after the grant of Government approval.  This forced students to study in a school that operated from the cattle shed of defunct Pookode dairy project!

CAG also noted that State Government sanctioned (January 2010) acquisition of 1,000 acres of land for the resettlement of landless tribals and released Rs 50 crore (2011-12) to the Tribal Resettlement and Development Mission (TRDM) Wayanad for this purpose. But, the amount is still kept unutilised (September 2013) and no

progress was achieved in the acquisition of suitable land for distribution among tribal people.”

A survey conducted by the Kerala Institute of Local Administration in association with the Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department showed that 49 per cent tribal houses lack toilets. As many as 24,289 families do not hold ration cards. More than 55 per cent live in dilapidated houses. In all, 39,850 houses do not have kitchen. Half of the population is deprived of pure drinking water and 1252 tribal hamlets are not electrified. More than 1300 tribal settlements face threat from wild animals, according to a story published in The Hindu in December 2011.

The narrative on Kerala tribals can’t be made wholesome without factoring a few newspaper headlines. Here is a sample: 1) ‘Rs 1,347cr spent on tribal welfare but results missing’. This was headline for Thissur datelined story that appeared in Times of India on 24th July 2015. 2) ‘Leech Fields -Social indices topper Kerala just can’t stop the baby deaths in its malnutrition-hit tribal Attapady belt’. This was the headline for an exhaustive report with shocking images of plight of tribals that appeared in Outlook Magazine dated 29 July 2013. 3) ‘Criminal neglect takes toll on Attappady tribes’. This was the headline for a story on 30 infant deaths that appeared in Down to Earth magazine in July 2013.

CM’s office can access more such stories and studies from cyberspace to put in place a credible delivery mechanism for tribal welfare schemes.

Turn now to the need for a wake-up call for Mr. Modi. He owes an apology to tribals for his Government’s failure to unveil national tribal policy, whose first draft was unveiled by UPA Government in August 2006!

He also needs to explain two-year delay in making public HLC report and the Government’s decisions on its recommendations.

Above all, both UPA and NDA should tender a joint apology to the nation for holding back annual reports of National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST).

Established under the Article 338A of the Constitution in 2004, NCST is mandated to present its annual report to the President. In the annual report, NCST recommends steps that should be taken by the Centre and/or States for effective implementation of the safeguards.

NCST website says that the Commission has withheld publication of its annual reports for six consecutive years ending 2012-13 pending their disclosure to Parliament. NCST finalized its report for 2013-14 on 13^th April 2016 for presentation to President only last month.

The Government is duty-bound to place in both houses of the Parliament NCST’s annual reports along with a Memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations relating to the Centre.

Let Parliament consider all pending reports on tribals and lay an Agenda for Growth of all Tribals in the forthcoming monsoon session.

                                                  Ends 

 

Dr. Vijay Mallya, judge yourself by your own words

Image Courtesy: Tehelka

“The accountability for performance in business is no different to accountability of governance. This great nation has to think of tomorrow and beyond, and the standards of performance and accountability by both, Government and business, must set an example for the future.”

Does this advice rankles Dr. Mallya’s mind (if not as a missed heart beat) when he takes a break from his favourite drinks at his royal retreat outside London? Perhaps not because he might not recollect that he stated this on 3^rd May 2002. The occasion was an “awe-inspiring moment in my life” as he put it while delivering his maiden speech as a MP. And the debate he chose to participate was Gujarat riots.

He stated: “Let the failure of performance of the Government in Gujarat be an eye-opener. Let us not indulge in recriminations; but set an example on how the failure in governance should be dealt with, so that these unfortunate happenings are eradicated and never repeated.”

Dr. Mallya should apply his thoughts and values to Kingfisher Airlines (KFA) whose failure to pay to employees, vendors, statutory authorities and lenders constitute the moment of reckoning. Parliament would like to hear from him how failure in corporate governance and ethics should be dealt with. 

People now also want Dr, Mallya to live by your words. The public expect him to come back to India and to either settle or fight his KFA legal battles with all stakeholders including ex-employees, some of whom have been reduced to paupers for want of accountability that you once professed.

His Rs 4000-crore one-time settlement (OTS) offer made through his lawyers in Supreme Court does not comply with minimum performance standards set by himself, government and RBI. This issue, however, can be elaborated in a separate write-up.

Reverting to Mallya as an businessman, his well-wishers would want him to see in board rooms of UB group companies including stock market-listed United Breweries (Holdings) Limited (UBHL), whose assets he estimated at more than Rs 12,000 crore in a letter dated 28 September 2011.  It appears to be a sinking ship.

As put by UBHL’s annual report for 2014-15, “Accumulated losses of the company are more than fifty percent of its net worth. The company has not incurred cash losses during the financial year covered by our audit. The company has incurred cash losses during the immediately preceding financial year.”
It adds accumulated losses of the group are also more than fifty percent of its net worth.

UBHL subsidiaries -Kingfisher Training and Aviation Services Limited, UB Infrastructure Projects Limited, Kingfisher Aviation Training Limited, Bangalore Beverages Limited, UB Sports Limited, Kingfisher Goodtimes Private Limited and Bestride Consultancy Private Limited have been facing liquidity crunch, resulting in their ability to transfer funds to parent company being significantly impaired.

When the King of Good Times heralds bad times for its employees, lenders and vendors, corporate accountability naturally becomes the national agenda. Questions of all sorts have thus been put in the media. Mr. Mallya can rightly contend that he is being singled out from loan defaulters by media. He should, however, know that this is the price one pays for projecting an image of King of so-called good values (lavish parties, flirting with girls, seductive calenders and making exorbitantly expensive offering to deities while compromising KFA staff’s right to life which depends on right to earn livelihood).

Mr. Mallya can ignore questions, pinpricks and slurs from media. How long he would, however, avoid face-to-face questioning from Enforcement Directorate and other statutory authorities? What if banks spurn his OTS offer? What if criminal investigation cases by authorities result in framing of concrete charges and are presented to the judiciary? What would he do if Supreme Court ultimately directs him to appear in person to defend himself?

And how long he would fritter any opportunity to put interesting questions on wide range of subjects in Rajya Sabha? The subjects on which he raised questions include loan write-offs, money laundering, extradition treaties, tax information network, provision of alimony on break-up of live-in relationship, rehabilitation of children of devadasis and development of missiles.

He wore his heart on the sleeve while raising issues concerning industries in which UB group has had presence. These include fertilizers, liquor, Formula-1 car racing and aviation.

Participating in the debate relating to Union Budget for 2004-05 on 20^th July 2004, Dr. Mallya, for instance, appealed to Finance Minister “to pay particular attention to the difficulties being experienced by the domestic fertilizer industry as a result of which no fresh investments have been made.” He added: “A happy farmer needs a healthy fertilizer industry.”

This quote can be turned around by KFA stakeholders in different ways to underscore their plight. The message here is that Dr. Mallya can be confronted with his own preaching by digging into his speeches at different occasions including annual general meetings of shareholders of UB group companies.

Above all, he has to remember what he told Tarun Tejpal, Tehelka founder, at Tehelka’s Goa retreat – Think 2013. Dr. Mallya stated: “The way I look at life, you cannot complete a lifecycle without failures”.

Dr. Mallya should now put full stop to his corporate failures and use them as stepping stones for bounce back to good times for him and his countrymen.

Dr. Mallya must ponder over the concluding paragraph of his maiden speech in Rajya Sabha. He had stated: “I hope that all those who are privileged to be Members of this august House would devote their time, skills and energies to the emergence of a disciplined, result-oriented India, where citizens belonging to different castes, creed and religion, from all walks of life, can live with positive hope and actually look forward to the overall prosperity of future generations in the making of a great nation that will occupy its rightful place in the developed world.”

                                             Ends