#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 

Ambedkar-Nehru frosty ties that Parliament won’t recollect

(Edited Image Courtesy: PIB)

Have you ever come across any instance of a Prime Minister describing a departed national icon as “very controversial figure” in obituary?

Jawaharlal Nehru did so on 6th December 1956 while sharing his grief over demise of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. And in this hangs a tale of uneasy relationship between these two leaders – a relationship in which Dr. Ambedkar missed no opportunity to unmask and jab at Mr. Nehru.

This narrative is relevant as Parliamentarians are currently vying with one another in eulogizing Dr. Ambedkar as chief architect of Indian Constitution and prime mover of socio-political reforms. He also had premonition of his death. He had also cautioned the Government against taking the country to dogs!

Before recounting certain punches thrown by Dr. Ambedkar at Nehru, hear what Mr. Nehru stated: “Dr. Ambedkar for many, many years had been a very controversial figure in Indian public affairs, but there can be no doubt about his outstanding quality, his scholarship, and the intensity with which he pursued his convictions, sometimes rather with greater intensity than perhaps required by the particular subject, which sometimes reacted in a contrary way. But he was the symbol of that intense feeling which we must always remember, the intense feeling of the suppressed classes in India who have suffered for ages past under our previous social systems, and it is as well that we recognise this burden that all of us should carry and should always remember.”

Dr. Ambedkar resigned as Law Minister from Nehru Cabinet in 1951 following differences over former’s cherished Hindu Code Bill, which was not passed and later modified as Hindu Marriages and Divorce Bill, 1952.

He listened to Mr Nehru’s rambling and laboured rationalization of Government’s decision to tinker with the order of Labour Appellate Tribunal on Bank Disputes in Rajya Sabha on 2nd September 1954.

Dr. Ambedkar had a dig at Nehru’s statement: “The Prime Minister's case—if I understood him correctly—resembled the case of a woman who had given birth to an illegitimate child and when she was questioned on this issue, she said: ‘Sir, it may be illegitimate, but it is a very small baby.’ Well, I suppose we could separate the two issues, the fact that the decision is illegitimate and the fact that the decision probably is a small one.”

Participating in a discussion on report of Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC&ST) in the same month, he targeted Nehru for his indifference towards ostracization.  

Dr. Ambedkar stated: “Our Prime Minister has taken no interest in this matter at all. In fact, he seems to be not only apathetic but anti-untouchable. I happen to have read his biography and I find that he castigated Mr. Gandhi because Mr. Gandhi was prepared to die for the purpose of doing away with separate electorates which was given to the scheduled castes. He said in his biography, ‘Why on earth Mr. Gandhi is bothering with this trifling problem.’ Sir, I was shocked and surprised to hear the Prime Minister – rather Mr. Nehru then in 1934 – uttering these words. I thought that since the responsibility of Government had fallen on his shoulder he may have changed his view and thought that he must now take the responsibility which Mr. Gandhi was prepared to take on his shoulder, but I do not find any kind of a change in his mind.”

He continued: “Sir, in the year 1952 a conference was held at Nagpur under the Presidentship of my hon. Friend, Babu Jagjivan Ram. I understood that there was a very big shamiana. Two silver chairs were placed on the dais, one for Mr. Jagjivan Ram and one for Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. There was an audience of two hundred to three hundred and one thousand police. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was supposed to inaugurate that conference. I have got his speech here, but I do not wish to trouble the House by reading it, but this is the gist of it. He was, I am told, in great anger against Babu Jagjivan Ram for having organised the conference. He said roundly ‘I do not recognize that there is such a problem as that of the untouchables. There is a general problem of the economically poor and the problem of the untouchables is a part of that problem. It will take its place and receive its attention along with the other problems. There is no occasion, no purpose in bestowing any special thought upon it’.”

He added: “Sir, if the Prime Minister is prepared to throw such cold water— not cold, water from the refrigerator, so to say—what enthusiasm can we expect from the rest of the workers who have taken upon themselves the duty or the responsibility or the interest in carrying on with this particular problem: I do not think that untouchability will vanish.”

Participating in a discussion on international situation in August 1954, he blamed Nehru for delaying and complicating the issue of Portuguese exiting Goa.

Dr. Ambedkar stated: “There can be no doubt that the Prime Minister in pursuing the policy of getting Goa evacuated is quite right. It is a very sound policy and everybody must lend his support to him. I do. But there is one observation that I would like to make.”

He continued: “This question about the evacuation of Goa by the Portuguese and handing it over to India was, if I remember alright, brought to his notice very early when we got our independence. I possess with me some notes which were submitted to him by a delegation—I have forgotten their names. But I have got them with me—but the Prime Minister took no active interest in it.”

He added: “I am very sorry to say that, because I feel that if the Prime Minister had in the very beginning taken an active interest in the matter. I am sure about it that a small police action on the part of the Government of India would have been quite sufficient to enable us to get possession of Goa. But he has always been only shouting against them, only shouting and doing nothing. The result has been that the Portuguese have been able, so far as we know, to garrison Goa.”

Dr. Ambedkar also questioned Mr. Nehru’s foreign policy that hinged on three principles – peace; co-existence between communism and democracy; and the opposition to now defunct Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). He also debunked Mr. Nehru’s Panchsheel principle, which was trampled by Chinese aggression in 1962.

He stated: “The Prime Minister has been depending upon what may be called the Panchsheel taken by Mr. Mao and recorded in the Tibet treaty of nonaggression. Well, I am somewhat surprised that the Prime Minister should take this Panchsheel seriously. The Panchsheel, as you, Sir, know it well, is the essential part of the Buddhist religion, and if Mr. Mao had any faith in the Panchsheel, he certainly would treat the Buddhists in his own country in a very different way. There is no room for Panchsheel in politics and secondly, not in the politics of a communist country.”

As for his premonition about his death, Dr. Ambedkar, a diabetic, made a few philosophical repartees while participating in a debate on States Reorganization Bill in May 1956.

When a MP interjected in his speech and quipped: “God save your soul.”

Dr. Ambedkar responded: “Do not pray for my soul. I have no soul. I am a Buddhist. Nobody need take the trouble of praying for my soul. I do not believe in God. I have no soul. I have spared you that trouble.”

In the same debate, another MP hinted that only he had the requisite stature to succeed Home Minister G.B. Pant, if such an eventuality arose.

 To this, he retorted: “I shall die pretty soon. Don't enrol me. This country, by this kind of thing, is going to dogs. Our primary concern is to raise and train politicians so that they can learn to take responsibility upon their own shoulders.”

As the cliché goes, rest is history.

                                                           Ends

Modi’s shift from Proactive to Reactive PM shatters billion dreams

                                                 (Sunset for Modi?)

The prime mover advantage in political narrative is shifting from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the opposition parties.

The shift is set to gather momentum following the BJP’s debacle in Bihar polls that was preceded by drubbing in Delhi from rookie politician Arvind Kejriwal. The election results have delivered a decisive blow to Modi’s waning charisma and credibility.

Many a citizen would henceforth view with suspicion whatever good initiative that Mr. Modi takes in future. They would suspect it as a part of larger Hindutva agenda.  

Similarly, the Opposition would take credit for anything good that Mr. Modi does in any socio-economic domain. They would say something like this: Modi is doing this because we created public pressure for him to act. He is backtracking because… and so on and so forth. As this process gains momentum in the coming months, Mr. Modi would be seen as a reactive leader and not as a proactive leader.

Barring sound and fury, he failed to act as a proactive leader on all fronts except his hobbyhorse, #SwachhBharat (Clean India). And action in this domain has been more theatrical and not holistic. It has hardly changed the ground actuality.  India thus continues to stink.  

When electorate gave BJP the Lok Sabha mandate to govern well, then it was swayed by Mr. Modi’s perceived passion for growth and reforms. The public saw him as a proactive leader who would cut Gordian knot of hurdles to herald #AccheDin (Good Days) for all.

He failed to rise to the occasion perhaps because he trusts only very few colleagues, who in turn have created their own cliques of trusted advisors. The bane of Modi regime is the distrust for established institutional framework and outside professional talent.

 Mr. Modi is also indifferent towards well-meaning advice that flows from institutions, analysts and small fries at large. (http://bit.ly/1QwEHB9   http://bit.ly/1hDDzNy http://bit.ly/1HndNcM http://bit.ly/1JCBxEb )

Be it the attacks on churches, be it arrogance-inspired land ordinance, be it ghar wapsi (conversion of Christians and Muslims back to Hinduism), be it cow slaughter, be it beef tamasha, be it abusive tongue-lashing by certain BJP leaders, Mr. Modi’s initial response has always be stoic silence.

Take any case and make a Google search. Pop comes the headline that runs on these lines: Modi finally breaks his silence.

In each case, the Opposition and other opinion leaders goaded PM to break his silence. And he always spoke too late and too little, thereby consolidating his image as reactive leader, who drew comfort from great escape from domestic grind by flying abroad ostensibly to build India’s image.

With this background, consider reactive PM scenario with five hypothetical situations in point.

Take the case of farmers’ suicides and worsening agrarian crisis especially in drought hit areas. Mr. Modi has avoided healing touch at the ground level like an ignorant person distancing himself from HIV patient. Now when PM finally spares time from his foreign tours and visits families hit by suicides, Rahul Gandhi would take credit for it. And rightly so: Mr. Gandhi has been taunting Modi repeatedly on this issue.

Consider now PM’s truancy from Parliament. Mr. Modi is the leader of Lok Sabha. He is country’s CEO. And yet he is extremely frugal in sparing time to participate in discussions in Parliament on burning issues. As and when, he now improves his visibility in Parliament, the Opposition would take legitimate credit for bringing escapist PM on the line.

Take the case of population explosion, an issue that Modi has shunned like plague after becoming PM. His Government has categorically ruled out formulation of new population policy (NPP) to replace the one framed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government in 2000. This policy was unveiled to implement recommendations of  a committee constituted by National Development Council (NDC) during Narasimha Rao regime in the nineties.

Modi has not even-reconstituted the National Population Commission (NPC), which last met in October 2010. In that meeting chaired by his predecessor, NPC resolved that “population stabilisation should be accorded high priority and brought back into the political discourse at all levels. (And) the Chief Ministers should provide leadership to the promotion of small family norms.”

As and when Modi Government revives NPC or initiates a move to frame NPP, it would be viewed as handiwork of RSS.

The Opposition would promptly point out that RSS had recently demanded formulation of NPP taking into consideration the decline in share of Hindus’ in total population and rise in share of Muslims. RSS articulated its stance on demography with the situation in Assam.

As put by RSS’ resolution passed at its conference on 30^th October, Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal (ABKM) observed: “severe demographic changes brought forth by the analysis of the religious data of Census 2011 highlight the necessity of the review of population policy. Vast differences in growth rates of different religious groups, infiltration and conversion resulting in religious imbalance of the population-ratio, especially in border areas may emerge as a threat to the unity, integrity and cultural identity of the country.”

And Modi critics would not fail to articulate their attack by recalling his 2002 quotable jibe “hum paanch hamare pachees” (We five (husband plus 4 wives and our 25 Kids) directed against a community.  

Leave aside this sectarian angle, the country urgently needs a NPP to rein in population growth to avoid further erosion of benefits of economic growth through multiplication of population especially among the poor. As it is, the existing population is unsustainable from the standpoint of limited natural resources particularly land and water.

Consider now the case of PM-chaired National Integration Council (NIC), which last met in September 2013. Modi’s distrust for institutions is obvious here: He has not reconstituted NIC, leave aside the remote idea of convening it. Now as and when Modi convenes NIC, the media would jump to conclusion that it is being convened following incessant campaign against growing Intolerance. Award Wapsi and Tsunami of other protests.

Take now PM’s rhetoric on cooperative federalism and Team India. The credibility deficit is yawning in this arena. Mr. Modi has not cared to reconstitute Inter-State Council (ISC), whose half-yearly meetings he demanded as Gujarat CM. ISC, a constitutional entity, has not met for almost nine years.

He has also not constituted ISC Standing Committee (ISC-SC) which is chaired by Union Home Minister. 

Like his predecessor Dr. Manmohan Singh, Mr. Modi is keeping Maun Varat on recommendations of Commission on Centre-State Relations (CCSR) that submitted its seven-volume report in April 2010. 

Now as and when ISC is revived and meets, the Opposition would take credit for it. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s Chief Ministers’ Conclave on Cooperative Federalism would be cited as an instance of political pressure on Modi to respect federalism in letter and spirit.

We can consider more such instances of Mr. Modi’s failure to bank on institutions and established practices for good governance. When BJP licks the dust at the next Lok Sabha polls, Mr. Modi would have enough time to reflect over his failure to take the right decision at the right time.  

He might like to recall what almost every student learns in a good school: time and tide wait for none.

Caste Politics Turns leaders Blind to Unique Fair Deal for Poor

(Image Courtesy:National Commission for Scheduled Castes)


If a Chaiwala (tea seller) can become Prime Minister of the country, what stops a beggar from aspiring for the same coveted post?
The answer lies in the conspiracy of silence among all political parties on India’s most revolutionary socio-political reform mooted by late V.P. Singh in August 1990. He, as PM, mooted the reform as an add-on to the National Front Government’s decision to implement Mandal Commission Report (MCR).
The public thus knows Mr. Singh best as provider of 27% reservation of jobs in Central Government and central public enterprises (CPEs) for other backward classes (OBCs) in keeping with MCR.
Very few know that he pitched for two vital caste and religion-neutral reforms for the poor as a class without encountering any opposition. He could not implement the two ideas as his Government fell in November 1990 after withdrawal of support by certain parties.
Mr. Singh’s two crucial forgotten reform proposals are: Reservation of 40% of seats in Parliament and State Assemblies for the poor and fixation of 5-10% jobs quota for poor in the Central domain.  
Even Chief of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Mohan Bhagwat, has not mentioned this unfinished reforms agenda set by Mr. Singh.
Clarifying the decision to implement MCR in Rajya Sabha on 9th August 1990, Mr. Singh stated: “If 40 per cent of the people are below the poverty line, in the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha and Assemblies, we can reserve seats for the poor to that extent. In Rajya Sabha, in Lok Sabha and in the Assemblies, we can really speak for the poor to the extent. These will be the real social changes which history will expect of us.”
He continued: “If there is a consensus of the House, we from the Government side are ready to bring forward Constitutional Amendment Bill. It will necessitate constitutional change for which we do not have the majority. But certainly, with your support, we have made four changes. We can make the fifth one also which the coming generations will remember.”
Mr. Singh added: “Let us forget that the poor are begging for some crumbs. They have suffered it for thousands of years. Now they are fighting for their honour as a human being.”
Late Sita Ram Kesri, longtime Congress Party Treasurer and later its President, instantly welcomed Mr. Singh’s idea.
An MP then quipped: “What about the Leader of the Opposition?”
Mr. P. Shiv Shanker (Congress) replied: “I have thumped the table. What more do you want?
Mr. Singh later thanked the House for supporting the proposal. He stated: “I think it is very happy moment for me. It is one of the happiest moments. I did have to muster a lot of courage to say it.”
In October 1990, PM wrote a letter to leaders of all parties in both houses of Parliament, articulating his proposal to reserve 40% seats in all legislatures.
Noting that numerous initiatives to ameliorate the lot of poor have failed to significantly reduce poverty, Mr. Singh observed: “All this has pushed the poor further into a state of hopelessness and the feeling that they are not masters of their own destiny.”
Explaining the rationale for his reservation proposal, he wrote: “No more should we perpetuate the giver-taker relationship that has been institutionalized in our society where the poor are the mere “receivers” of certain State-funded “benefits” without having any real say in decision-making.”
He continued: “This would call for the realisation that the problem of poverty is not just one of economics alone, but it is, in truth, one of sharing of power in the political economy of the country. We should now think of a strategy and mechanism by which the poorest of the poor can reach out to the sanctum sanctorum of power where decisions affecting them are made.”
Concluding his soul-stirring letter, Mr. Singh stated: “This suggestion (40% seats reservation) was welcomed by several member of Parliament. We now have to debate this issue seriously and generate a consensus so as to make this idea a reality.” (See three-page text of the letter for more).
In another clarification on Mandal Commission report in Rajya Sabha on 27th August, 1990, Mr. Singh stated: “At the same time, the Government is equally concerned about the future of our Youth in general. In the Rajya Sabha, there was a suggestion from the Members to provide reservation for the poor over and above the reservation for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, and I had said that we would sympathetically consider some reservation for the poor, irrespective of social groups. This was reiterated by the Finance Minister, Prof. Madhu Dandavateji in the intervention in
the Lok Sabha. We propose to provide an additional reservation of 5 per cent to 10 per cent for the poor, irrespective of social groups, entirely on the basis of appropriate economic criteria, after taking the sense of this august House.”
Does Prime Minister Narendra Modi have the gumption to take Mr. V.P. Singh’s caste-neutral agenda for making poor equal partners in decision-making and development?

Three-page Text of V.P. Singh's letter to leaders of all political parties

Kejriwal’s sack Drama Pales Against ‘PM sacked Deputy PM’ case

(Edited Image Courtesy: delhi.gov.in)

Now that #AAPWalksTheTalk twitter party is over, we can dish out some sobering thoughts for Aam Adami Party (AAP) Supremo-cum-Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his fans.

The anti-bribery jubilation also has an embedded message for a section of the mainstream media, which projected Mr. Kejriwal's  “live” sacking of Food Minister Asim Ahmad Khan as “unprecedented” and refrained from asking critical questions to CM. 

First fact first. Mr. Kejriwal is not the first Chief Minister/Prime Minister to sack a minister. In March this year, tainted Tamil Nadu Agriculture Minister S.S Krishnamoorthy was not only sacked from the Cabinet but also stripped of all AIADMK party posts. He was later sent to judicial custody too. (http://bit.ly/1QfU66s)

Certain CMs in different States have sacked ministers of dubious reputation without flaunting corruption charges as that might later be trashed by the courts. Even the so-called “weakest” Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had goaded Union Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan of the alleged ‘jayanthi tax’ fame resign from UPA Cabinet in December 2013.

Way back in August 1948, PM Jawahar Lal Nehru had dropped (sacked according to one version) India's first Finance Minister R.K. Shanmukham Chetty for allegedly being soft towards certain business houses in pursuing taxation cases against them. Later, Mr. Nehru kept the finance portfolio with himself for about a month. (http://bit.ly/1jV9uem & http://bit.ly/1L5D61x )

 If these instances appear weak in theatrics which is Kejriwal’s trademark, let me take him and AAP's teenyboppers to a unique case of Prime Minister sacking Deputy Prime Minister on grave charges of misconduct: Late Mr. V.P. Singh had sacked the No.2 man, Late Chaudhary Devi Lal, in the National Front Government in August 1990.

At that time, private TV news channels had not cropped up. There was obviously no online social media. Mr. Singh had to thus sack Mr.Lal through an official release. And yet Mr. Singh's sacking of his Deputy PM was more credible and dramatic than Mr. Kejriwal's action.

PM had slapped three charges on Mr. Lal: 1) Quoting a forged letter in an interview with a weekly magazine. The letter was allegedly written by Mr. Singh in November 1987 to the President of India when he was a minister in Rajiv Gandhi Government, levelling charges against the then cabinet colleagues. 2) In the interview, Mr. Lal made serious, unsubstantiated allegations against his Cabinet colleagues. 3) He also made derogatory remarks against PM in the interview.

In a letter addressed to Mr. Lal on 1st August 1990, Mr. Singh stated: “For these acts of yours, of violations of all cannons of collective responsibility of the Cabinet, I have recommended to the President of India to drop you from the Council of Ministers.”

Consider now the second fact. In this case, Mr. Singh had given an opportunity to Mr. Lal to defend himself on these charges through a letter dated 29th July 1990. Mr. Lal failed to answer razor-sharp queries on the forged letter. Nor did he provide evidence to substantiate allegations against other ministers.

Mr. Kejriwal, on other hand, did not give an opportunity to Mr Khan to reply to the alleged case of bribery, which is based on a recorded telephonic conversation. This is evident from his initial reaction immmediately after a Press Conference. A daily quoted Mr. Khan as saying: “I have not heard the recording and am in a state of shock. The party said that till the inquiry is on, I should not be in office.”

The very next day, Mr. Khan trashed Kejriwal's charges at a Press conference. He attributed his sacking to AAP’s internal politics and an attempt to save some big gun within the party. He reportedly said: “I am the sacrificial goat”. He also resolved to expose the conspiracy against him in a few days.

 In playing a taped conversation in which Mr. Khan is allegedly seeking bribes at the Press Conference, Mr. Kejriwal not only showed contempt for the Law but also rationalized media lynching of suspects.

It is here pertinent to quote what the then Chairman of Law Commission Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, stated in its 200th report captioned ‘Trial by Media: Free Speech Vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971)’ submitted in August 2006.

Mr. Rao observed: “According to our law, a suspect/accused is entitled to a fair procedure and is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty in a Court of law. None can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice his case by the time it goes to trial.”

If Mr. Khan drags Kejriwal Government to the court and wins a defamation suit, would Mr. Kejriwal resign as CM? Was this question raised in the feted Press conference?

Third, if Mr. Kejriwal is sincere in battling corruption at top echelons of power, why has he not made public all the files on corruption complaints in which some of his ministers are suspects, the latest case being that of alleged nepotism towards a firm owned by a kin of Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia?

Any clean head of a government would have no hesitation in suo moto disclosure of all files on all commercial deals. After all, transparency is the key to prevention of bribery.

Why has Mr. Kejriwal left the post of anti corruption ombudsman, Lokayukta, vacant for several months? Why has he dragged his feet over Jan Lokpal bill? Why has he not referred to CBI several cases of irregularities that happened during the previous Congress regime at Delhi? And what about the donations scam that rocked AAP on the eve of Delhi Assembly elections?

Fourth, Kejriwal deserves praise for outsmarting Prime Minister Narendra Modi in anti-corruption theatrics. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Modi/BJP would accept Kejriwal’s gauntlet and take decisive political steps in Lalitgate, VyapamGate, Rajasthan mining scam, etc.  

         #BeefPolitcs Rants Prove Activists’ Duplicity on Lynching by mobs

    

(Indian Civil Society should create such online museum on lynching by mobs in the country)

Is there a good or bad lynching by mob? Do media especially #ShrillNow TV channels and self-certified, #CivilSociety have different set of ethics on lynching debates?  Should there be different levels of concern over two types of death – one resulting from lynching and the other from court verdicts? 

These issues would stir the mind of any rationalist who values all human lives irrespective of the lynched person’s profile. These would equally disturb any citizen who wishfully prays for enforcement of the rule of the law in the country.  

The two triggers for these concerns are: hysterical response of certain sections of the intelligentsia over lynching of father-son duo in a village at Dadri in Uttar Pradesh (UP) and hanging of 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Yakub Memon. 

In the latter case, civil society indulged in unprecedented theatrics to delay implementation of reconsidered Supreme Court verdict even as it kept mum on heinous instances of lynching during the same period. 

In both these cases, the common factor is that lynched/hanged persons belonged to a particular religion. This reflects the inherent bias of the media, civil society and vote bank-obsessed politicians for a particular segment of society. Both cases served as a perfect opportunity for dubious intellectuals to bash BJP in particular, and Sangh Parivar in general. 

And this bias becomes crystal clear if we compare shrill and repeated condemnation of deaths in these two instances with numerous cases of lynching. The latter type of tragedies often gets tucked away as fringe news on inside pages of most dailies. These are also under-reported by TV channels perhaps due to their lower prospects for boosting TRP ratings.  

Vocal civil society (as distinct from silent, hard-working, ground zero NGOs) has not even cared to issue namesake press releases or tweets condemning lynching in most of such cases. 

Consider a few cases which did not result in media and civil society outcry.

Two days prior to Dadri attack in which father died and son is battling for life, another person was beaten to death in a Kanpur village in UP on suspicion of his being a Pakistan terrorist. And last month, five innocent tribal women were stripped and lynched in a village on the outskirts of Ranchi in Jharkhand on suspicion of their being witches. As many as 49 tribals women were lynched in the State last year on charges of practising witchcraft. 

On 14th July 2015, six members of a tribal family including a three year-old were lynched on suspicion of practising witchcraft in Keonjhar district of Odisha. Did any of the celebrity critics of Yakub Memon commented on lynching of tribal family, leave aside filing a PIL in Supreme Court for protection of tribals?

On the 30th July, the day Memon was hanged for heinous crime, an alleged dalit rapist was freed from Police lock-up in Mathura in UP and lynched to death. Neither #ShrillNow channels nor human rights activists criticized this Kangaroo Court, which was similar to the one held in Diamapur in Nagaland in March 2015.

Coming back to defence of lynched tribal women, over 2500 tribal women were lynched after being dubbed as witches over 15 years, according to a study report in 2010.

Such cases are routinely reported, under-played or ignored because they are bereft of political punching opportunity. The only exception about activists’ indifference towards the rights of tribals is the case of Vedanta bauxite mining proposal. In this case, they had opportunity to repeatedly attack a corporate house perceived to be close to powers that be. 

The loud mouth anchor, whose TV channel advertises him as the only trusted journalist in the country, did not wonder whether India is a banana republic when it came to brutal lynching of tribal women.  

The banana republic contention is, however, valid in the case of lynching of women as alleged witches because the crime recurs in a dozen States in spite of enactment of anti-witch hunting laws by some States.  

The narcissist TV anchor hyped Dadri incident as Politics over beef. So did a few other media entities.  But none of them interpreted slaughter of innocent tribal women as politics of rituals or faith. It is quite possible that tribals perform certain rituals to propitiate their deity. Who decides which ritual is witchcraft and which ritual is paying obeisance to the Nature or gurus or demi-gods or the God? 

Let Prime Minister Narendra Modi stand up in defence of tribals rituals in his Mann Ki Baat. He should must political will to say tribal rituals are as important as the ones practiced by persons from all other faith. After all, he is the Prime Minister for all Indians and it is his duty to defend all religions as provided for by the Constitution.

Coming back to duplicity of media and civil society, they become hyper-active when it comes to another form of lynching called honour killing. Their livid response to honour killing is at its best when they target Khap Panchayats and the ruling political party’s failure to book them for breaking the law of the land. 

As for cow slaughter/beef-linked lynching, Sangh Parivar needs to do introspection as such cases are more pronounced when BJP is in power.  Recall the lynching of 5 dalit youths in Jhajjar in Haryana on allegations of cow slaughter in October 2002 when BJP-led NDA was holding the reign at the Centre. 

As many as 80 dalits from Gurgaon villages from which the lynched youths hailed   converted to Buddhism, Christianity and Islam as a protest against the lynching. 

According to a report datelined 28 October 2002 in Times of India, one Dalit, who embraced Islam, renamed himself as Saddam Hussein!