MPs & Journos Flaunt Their Poor Knowledge About Farmers' Suicides

(Image Courtesy: National Crimes Record Bureau)

Several Indian MPs and journalists have once again proved right Lord Macaulay's maxim--Half Knowledge is worse than ignorance. They did so by ranting over love affairs and impotency, which figure in the list of non-agrarian causes of farmers’ suicides.

These causes were mentioned by Agriculture Minister Radha Mohan Singh while answering a question in Rajya Sabha on Friday. The written reply also mentioned agrarian causes such as indebtedness, crop failure, drought, etc.

Certain TRP-obsessed Shrill TV channels and camera-friendly MPs chose to overlook or underplay these factors. They could not digest the fact that farmers, as members of society, can also be victims of impotency and failed love affairs. They conveniently forgot that honour killings are outcome of unapproved love affairs including extra-marital relationship.

What they would find now nauseating is the fact these very causes of farmers suicides have been mentioned several times in Parliament over the years without inviting any tantrums. And they have been reported by media without any fuss!

Was the parliamentary ruckus and media ridicule in the instant case driven by their proclivity to run down Modi Government at the slightest pretext?  Or was it another unintended tribute to Lord T.B. Macaulay, 18th Century British administrator? He introduced English-medium education and Indian Penal Code in the country.  

The Indian intelligentsia right from Prime Ministerial prospect Rahul Gandhi to obscure social media activists deplored Modi Government's insensitivity towards suicide committed by farmers.

Mr. Gandhi said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi should advise his ministers to visit villages to check the ground realty. The Samajwadi Party MP Naresh Agarwal reportedly demanded an apology from Mr. Singh for his “irresponsible” remarks. Another leading MP KC Tyagi described the reply as insult to farmers. One Nagendar Sharma tweeted: “Modi Govt breaking all record of absurdity: agriculture ministry now blames love affairs, drugs & impotency for farmers suicides.”

All leading TV channels and dailies reported the furore in Rajya Sabha over Mr. Singh's reply with shrill TV channels ridiculing the reply. One Channel quoted an MP threatening to file a privilege motion against the Minister for giving a wrong reply!

There is in fact a case for filing a privilege motion in the deemed Citizens' court against the intelligentsia for misleading the country time and again through their half-knowledge, ignorance and distortion of facts.

“Love affairs, barrenness/impotency” have figured in the long list of non-agrarian factors in the answer to Parliament questions for several years! These two factors that rattled Intelligentsia's conscience have been mentioned almost verbatim in the reply to Parliament questions posed during NDA and UPA regimes.

‘Love affair’ and ‘impotency’ were mentioned in at least seven questions raised during the tenure of UPA-II. And these two offending terms figured in the answer to six questions posed during first year of Modi Government before the seventh one triggered the storm.

All these years no one even squirmed over such non-agrarian factors that the Ministry sourced from “Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India” report of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). In some replies, they figure prominently in the open paragraph.

And the most derisive aspect of the brouhaha over impotency and love affairs is that they were reported by media in a sterile manner in August 2012.

The media that carried news stories including Indian Express (http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/2.90-lakh-farmers-committed-suicide-during-19952011-govt/995981/),  Economic Times (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-31/news/33521331_1_agrarian-reasons-bankruptcy-or-sudden-change-change-in-economic-status) and Outlook Magazine (http://www.outlookindia.com/news/printitem.aspx?773784).

The news stories were developed from the reply given by UPA regime's Minister of State for Agriculture Harish Rawat (presently Uttrakhand CM) in response to a question dated 31 August 2012. (http://164.100.47.5/qsearch/QResult.aspx).

Did Mr. Gandhi snub Mr. Rawat for mentioning two offending causes in his reply?

Parliament questions in which impotency and love affairs figured in replies during the UPA regime include: 1)Answer given by Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar in response to a question numbered 147 and dated 16th August 2013. In the very first paragraph of written reply, Mr. Pawar stated: “Number of suicides of farmers since 1999, yearwise and Statewise, as compiled annually by National Crime Records Bureau is at Annexure I. Causes of suicides include family problems, illness, drug abuse/addiction, unemployment, property dispute, bankruptcy or sudden change in economic status, poverty, professional/career problem, love affair,  barrenness/impotency, cancellation/non-settlement of marriage, dowry dispute, fall in social reputation, causes not known, etc.”

Ten days prior to this, Mr. Pawar had given the same verbatim reply in the very first sense of response to the question numbered 24 put in Lok Sabha on 6th August 2013. 

The Minister of State for Agriculture Tariq Anwar stated the same non-agrarian factors (including the offending ‘love affair’ and ‘impotency’) in the very first paragraph of his reply to question numbered 2964 raised in Rajya Sabha on 21st February 2014. 

It is not only NCRB that has recorded non-agrarian factors as the additional causes for farmers’ suicides.  Expert Committees and studies have delved into these issues.

Answering a question numbered 483 in Rajya Sabha on 1st March 2013, Mr Anwar stated: “The Expert Group on Agricultural Indebtedness pointed out, interalia, that suicide is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, the risk factors can be either neurobiological or socioeconomic and root cause is not indebtedness alone, which is just a symptom.”

The underlying message of this uncalled for ruckus is that all stakeholders of shoot-and-scoot journalism should do their home work before speaking. 

Kejriwal amasses monumental deficit in battling corruption

(Edited Image Courtesy: Transparency International)

‘All parties together in corruption: Arvind Kejriwal’. So ran the headline for the PTI story datelined 17th August 2012 published in Economic Times and certain other publications.
At that time, Mr. Kejriwal had not formed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). He loved playing the role of anti-graft crusader. He is now struggling to retain this carefully-crafted image in the eyes of Aam Aadmi.
 After regaining power in Delhi in February, he, as Chief Minister, has failed to act in suspected/alleged cases of major corruption. And to deflect the public attention from his flop-show, Mr. Kejriwal is now resorting to gimmicks. A case in point is the outsourcing of manpower for Delhi Government’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) from Bihar Government.
He is also dragging his feet over his hobbyhorse, Delhi Jan Lokpal Bill, which has not even been introduced in the State Assembly till today.  He has thus not kept his word to introduce the Bill in the in the first session of re-constituted assembly.
He has also not exercised the existing option for the interregnum, i.e., facilitating appointment of Delhi Lokayukta. This post is lying vacant since October 2013, leading to massive pile-up of cases requiring investigation. It has already triggered a public interest litigation that has led Delhi High Court to admonish his Government to act fast on this subject.
Lokpal or Lokayukta, Kejriwal is caught is a situation similar to one faced by a novice riding the tiger. The ombudsman, whatever be its legal basis, is likely to unmask him by taking up potential cases involving his party and MLAs. A notable case that no anti-corruption watchdog can over is the dubious Rs 2-crores donation that his party received from four shell companies.
Mr. Kejriwal is thus haunted with the risk of the public throwing back at him, the same charge that swept him to power - All parties (AAP included) are together in corruption.
And there is notable circumstantial evidence to drive home this imminent prospect. Before listing the evidence, hear what Mr. Kejriwal stated in that story and how it is applicable to him today.
Referring to CAG reports on coal blocks, power and Delhi airport, Mr. Kejriwal stated: “We have just one question. Prime Minister, please tell us, where should we go to register an FIR on the basis of these reports. All the agencies are under the Prime Minister’s control and that is why we demand Lokpal.”
He continued: “We say all parties are involved in this (corruption) and no one wants to pass the Lokpal Bill. All parties are involved in this loot of natural resources. The states have benefitted the private companies in their respective states.”
He added: “If Jan Lokpal was there then on the basis of this report, we would have complained and in six months, the probe would have been completed. In one year, the case would have been completed and the accused would have been sent to jail in 18 months,” he said.
What would be Kejriwal’s reply if mainstream media were to toss these very questions to him on issues that he has ducked.
Barring the FIR-filing in KG basin gas price hike in January 2014 under his first stint as Delhi CM, Mr. Kejriwal has not ordered any probe on the basis of other CAG reports and serious charges available in public domain. He has not yet produced any outcome on gas pricing which is otherwise a Central Government’s subject, except for ranting against Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). Not even ACB’s probe report which should have been completed in six months as per his own norm!
There has thus been only sound and fury in AAP’s battle against graft with focus on necessity-driven petty bribes and virtually zero-action on greed-driven big-ticket graft.
Mr. Kejriwal is today haunted by his own silence on irregularities in areas such as commonwealth games scam including misuse of funds earmarked for Scheduled Castes. Many irregularities have been highlighted by CAG reports on Delhi including three latest ones presented in Parliament in August 2014.  Like much-maligned Dr. Manmohan Singh, Mr. Kejriwal is practicing Maun Vrat on irregularities that have the potential to blow into major corruption scandals if probed independently.
This is best illustrated by GMR-controlled Delhi International Airport Private Limited (DIAL), which operates the Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGIA). It was privatized by the UPA with a formal support agreement with the Delhi Government. This agreement, coupled with the CAG report, offers a perfect reason for Mr. Kejriwal to order a probe as we would discuss later. 
A month before forming AAP in November 2012, Mr. Kejriwal claimed that he was gathering evidence of politician-business nexus against GMR Infrastructure, DLF and India Bull group of companies.
As put by a story datelined 17th October 2012, “He has accused the companies of having investments by politicians and is seeking information from the public about these firms.”
Mr. Kejriwal has maintained deafening silence on this self-authorized probe since then, even though tonnes of information are available in the public domain.  Take first the CAG report on Implementation of Public Private Partnership (at) IGIA presented in Parliament in August 2012. CAG’s findings were articulated and corroborated by Public Accounts Committee during February 2014.
In the report, CAG concluded: “It was noted that the concept of upfront fee was used to lease out an additional land of 190.19 acres for a paltry one-time payment of Rs 6.19 crores. Other Government offices like Director General of Civil Aviation and Bureau of Aviation Security were given a much harsher treatment when 7.60 acres of land was leased out to them at a license fee of Rs 2.41 crores per annum.”
CAG explained: “Out of a total land area of 5106 acres of IGIA, AAI (Airport Authority of India) initially leased out 4608.9 acres for development of the airport. An additional 190.19 acres of land was leased to DIAL, thus bringing the total demised premises at 4799.09 acres.”
CAG’s 2nd charge: Ministry of Civil Aviation and later AERA (Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India) allowed DIAL to collect Development Fees amounting to Rs 3415.35 crores. The order of Ministry in February 2009 allowing this was in contravention of the OMDA, AAI Act and the AERA Act. Contrary to the provisions of OMDA (Operation, Management and Development Agreement), DIAL was allowed to use the amount collected as Development Fees to meet the project costs. In fact, only 19 per cent of the project cost came from equity, approximately 42 per cent came from debt. The remaining project costs were met from security deposits and Development Fees.
CAG stated: “Allowing these post contractual benefits violated the tendering process by which the JV partner was selected.”
CAG’s another charge: “Many observations in the present report would indicate that whenever DIAL raised an issue regarding revenue to accrue to it or expenditure to be debited to Government in contravention of the provisions of OMDA, the Ministry and AAI interpreted the provisions always in favour of the operators and against the interest of the Government.”
Apart from CAG report, Kejriwal Government has had another valid ground to order anti-corruption probe in privatization of Delhi airport. This by virtue of it being successor to Congress-led Government that signed an agreement dated 26th April 2006.
This agreement named ‘State Government Support Agreement (SGSA)’ between Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GONCT) and DIAL provides for all kind of assistance that the former would be required to provide the latter in development, operation and management of the airport.
And DIAL is exuding confidence in its empowerment to get work done from Delhi Government. In its offering memorandum dated 27th  January 2015 issued to international investors, DIAL says: “Under the terms of the SGSA, the GONCT agreed to use its best endeavors to, among others, (a) clear land required for the provision of aeronautical services at the Airport of any squatters occupying such land, (b) provide additional land necessary for the provision of aeronautical services at the Airport, (c) upgrade, modernize and maintain existing access roads to and from the Airport, namely National Highway 8, as well as make reasonable endeavors to develop additional modes of public transport to and from the Airport, (d) provide sufficient utility services to the Airport, (e) maintain cleanliness in the area surrounding the Airport and prevent any interference from animals or birds in such areas, and (f) provide us with all consents, licenses, approvals, permits and other authorizations or permissions required from GONCT under applicable law that we properly apply for in order to perform our obligations under the OMDA.”
The agreement’s clause relating to eviction of squatters conflicts with AAP’s solemn electoral promise that “slums will not be demolished under any circumstances.”
Why has Mr. Kejriwal not ordered review of all such contracts that were signed by Congress Party solely to serve the interest of the private companies?  Why has he not smelled rat in such contracts?
Turn now to CAG report on GONCT’s revenue and social and economic sectors (PSUs) presented in Parliament in August 2014 when the State Assembly was in suspended animation. The report has listed instances of revenue leakages running into several hundred crores of rupees. The leakages/revenue loss has been caused by short levy of taxes or failure to collect taxes and due to attempts to favour private companies.
Has Mr. Kejriwal asked ACB to probe such glaring irregularities mentioned in this CAG reports on Delhi? Information on this count is hard to come by in the public domain. 
Aam Aadmi is thus baffled by Mr. Kejriwal’s strategy to selectively target a few firms especially the ones promoted by Ambani brothers and maintain stoic silence in other instances. AAP is generous in issuing statements against Ambanis’ companies.
A case in point is the release dated 12th December 2014 targeting Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL). It says: “The reported opinion of the government’s top law officer, Attorney General, Mr Mukul Rohatgi advising the government to pay Rs 1800 crores to a subsidiary company of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) for terminating the contract of Delhi airport metro with the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) is a blatant attempt to help this company at the cost of public money and is nothing short of a multi-crores rupee scam.”
All this muck ultimately recoils into one issue: Has Mr. Kejriwal got hooked to the great Indian politics’ rope trick – Roar like a lion against corruption on public platforms and utter Meow Meow in privacy?

Loudmouths have Erred over PM’s 5-Star Activists Remark

                                                  (Edited Image-Courtesy: PIB)

The ruckus over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's observations as to whether public perceptions and five-star activists were driving court verdicts is an instance of dreaded shoot and scoot journalism. It is a classical case of half knowledge in action at certain TV news channels. 

There was nothing new in his comment that kept the Opposition and the mainstream media busy haranguing against PM for almost two days.  Mr. Modi merely paraphrased what different chief justices of India (CJIs), Supreme Court judges, high courts and other legal entities have stated over the years.

Mr. Modi’s predecessor, Dr. Manmohan Singh, had also voiced concern over certain aspects of judicial activism and public interest litigations (PILs). He had also done some plain-speaking on encroachment of the Executive turf by judicial activism in his speeches during his two tenures as Prime Minister. Did Loudmouths cry hoarse over Dr. Singh’s observations that would be elaborated later? 

Even the appellation ‘five star activists’ for foreign funded NGOs is an old hat. Mr. Modi has been using this term for more than a decade. He perhaps spun this label in London while addressing a meeting in London on 18th August 2003. 

Mr. Modi’s observations appear muted compared to what certain legal luminaries have stated boldly, honestly and emphatically to stem the growing rot within the judiciary. PM’s speech should have thus served as agenda for a serious debate on the nexus between judicial-NGO-media activism that has thrived largely due to governance-cum-legislative deficit. 

The critics distorted PM's balanced speech out of context. Why they overlooked judiciary’s loud introspection over judicial populism & corruption over the years?

The Loudmouths from the Opposition parties and the TV channels who accused Mr. Modi of the Contempt of the Court thus owe an apology to the nation for lowering the dignity of PM’s office and for vitiating public discourse. 

Before recalling mind-boggling observations made by eminent CJIs and other judges, we need to recapitulate what PM said while addressing the Joint Conference of Chief Justices of States and Chief Justices of High Courts on 5th April.

As the Government often does not issue the English translation of the text of PM’s speeches delivered in Hindi, we have to rely on news reports published by reputed dailies. 

According to a news report in one national daily, Modi said, “It is never too difficult to deliver justice within the boundaries of the law and Constitution. But it is very difficult to find the truth between perception and reality. It must be pondered over whether five-star activists are driving the judiciary today… if havoc is created to drive the judiciary. It has become difficult to deliver justice in an atmosphere of perception.”

Another national quoted PM as saying “The judiciary is not as fearless today as it used to be ten years back. Are five-star activists not driving the judiciary? Are they not attempting to do so? Judges fear what the reaction of five-star activists would be when they render justice as per law and as per Constitution.”

The same daily also quoted Mr. Modi as saying: “It is not difficult to dispense justice as per Constitution and law. But while doing so, judges must differentiate between perception (created by social activists) and fact.”

Turn now soul-stirring observations made by legal luminaries about the decay within the judiciary over the last 15 years. 

The issue of perception-driven verdict was aptly elaborated by the then CJI S.H. Kapadia in January 2012 while presiding over the Nani Palkhivala Memorial Trust Lecture.

Justice Kapadia reportedly observed: “Apart from independence from politics, the judiciary also needs independence from popular interest.” 

He averred: “If an order is not in favour of a particular group, then the judge faces a backlash. An atmosphere is created whereby pressure is exerted on the judge.”

Way back in July 1998, Press Council of India chairman and former Supreme Court judge P B Sawant expressed disquiet over the populism cult and corruption in the judiciary. 

Addressing the high court bar association in Nagpur, Justice Sawant said, “These two are very disturbing developments.” He said corruption was happening at “some place at all levels” and even if one or two judges were corrupt, it marred the image of the entire judiciary.

According to UNI report published by rediff.com, he stated that the populist trend among certain judges was more damaging than corruption. In the garb of judicial activism, things were done to humour the public opinion.

As put by the news report, “Justice Sawant said that instead of playing to the gallery, a judge should be ready to take the podium and ‘swim against the tide’. But in the garb of judicial activism, these judges were laying down wrong laws and precedents. He said populist judgments adversely affected the entire society.”

A wacky instance of such perception-driven verdict is Supreme Court’s ruling extending the definition of fundamental right to life to the right to sleep (in a public place) in February 2012.  This interpretation of the Constitution was done by a SC bench while ruling that Delhi Police had violated this right while acting against a sleeping crowd at Baba Ramdev’ Rally in Delhi under a suo-moto case. 

This led Justice Kapadia into doing some plain-speaking on judicial activism. In his lecture on ‘Jurisprudence of Constitutional Structure’ in August 2012, he stated that judges should not govern the country. They should not frame policies. They should apply “enforceability” test on the verdicts such defining right to sleep as a fundament right. 

He also reprimanded the civil society activists for questioning Parliament’s authority to frame laws and by draping themselves with “we the people” authority. 

Justice Kapadia is not the first CJI to articulate the need for judiciary exercising self restraint on judicial activism.

Way back in 1999, CJI Dr. A.S. Anand stated: “With a view to see that judicial activism does not become ‘judicial adventurism’ and lead a Judge going in pursuits of his own notions of justice, ignoring the limits of law, the bounds of his jurisdiction and the binding precedents, the courts must act with proper restraint and self-discipline.”

Inaugurating the golden Jubilee Celebrations of Rajasthan High Court, Justice Dr. Anand added: “The danger of the judiciary creating a multiplicity of rights without possibility of adequate enforcement is a real one. It must be guarded against. The judiciary should not become an institution of mere form bereft of substance.”

As put by Jusice Dr. Anand in his speech, which is available at Eastern Book Company’s website, “There are real limits to what the judicial process should attempt to accomplish and the judiciary should resist the temptation to cross those limits. The decisions of the courts should be within the zone of juridical legitimacy.”

According to a news report in a business daily published in March 2015, Madras High Court has ruled that judicial activism cannot encroach on other organs of democracy.

It is here also pertinent to quote a comprehensive analysis of judicial activism penned by ex-Solicitor-General of India T.R. Andhyarujina in the Hindu dated 6th August 2012.  

Listing several instances of the judiciary interfering in purely policy and routine governance issues, Mr Andhyarujina pointed out that the Supreme Court has made an order even in a military operation. 

He added: “In 1993, the Court issued orders on the conduct of military operations in Hazratbal, Kashmir where the military had as a matter of strategy restricted the food supplies to hostages. The Court ordered that the provision of food of 1,200 calorific value should be supplied to hostages.”

Commenting on this, an Army General wrote: “For the first time in history, a Court of Law was asked to pronounce judgment on the conduct of an ongoing military operation. Its verdict materially affected the course of operation.”

This shocking case might have perhaps rankled in Dr. Manmohan Singh’s mind in August 2006 when he identified one of the challenges faced by the society as: “the judiciary-executive relationships and the legislative tools that can be used to tackle the menace of terrorism while respecting human rights.”

Speaking at the Golden Jubilee of the Indian Law Institute, Dr. Singh also shared his unease about the quality of public debate. He observed: “In a functioning democracy like ours public debate is an important mechanism for facilitating the formulation of both laws and policies. They influence the interpretation of law and influence legislation.”

Inaugurating a conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts on ‘Administration of Justice on Fast Track,’ in April 2007, Dr. Singh stated public interest litigations (PILs) have great utility in initiating corrective action but these cannot become vehicles for settling political scores. “We need standards and benchmarks for screening so that only genuine PILs with a justiciable cause of action based on judicially manageable standards are taken up. This will also ensure consistency in judicial pronouncements”. He suggested that the Supreme Court could take a lead in framing rules in this regard.

Inaugurating the Commonwealth Law Conference in February 2011, Dr. Singh said: “it has to be ensured that the nonnegotiable premise of the constitutional scheme – defined as the basic structure of the constitution is not subordinated to political impulses of the moment or to the will of transient majorities. Also while the power of judicial review must be used to enforce accountability, it must never be used to erode the legitimate role assigned to the other branches of government.”

As for appellation ‘fire star activists’, it aptly captures the spirit voluble NGOs who frequently fly abroad to attend lavish international conferences on environmental and human rights agenda as defined by the West. Some of them NGOs also finance the visits of journalists to conferences or sites to further their agenda in public discourse! 

All NGOs and civil society activists are not paragons of virtue. Many of them aggressively push narrow and distorted agenda to appease their foreign donors. They are averse to showing a holistic understanding of rights of one section versus rights of the other section and arriving at a balanced resolution of complex issues. They don’t factor in constitutional duties of the citizens in their agenda.  Above all, dubious NGOs are reluctant to making their operations 100 percent transparent and filing income tax returns. Some of the dubious ones circumvent black-listing by floating new NGOs.

With this ground reality, Loudmouths should introspect whether they are highly biased against Mr. Modi. They must make amends to improve the quality of public discourse which Dr. Singh considers as vital for ensuring transparency in decision-making process in the country.

Indian Budget’s ‘Jan Dhan to Jan Suraksha’ initiative is much ado about nothing

                                                  (Edited image courtesy- rsby.gov.in)

The Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s announcement of three insurance schemes for the poor is a classical case of old wine in new bottle. It is pertinently more a case of oversight of plethora of existing schemes and similar announcements made by his predecessors including two stalwarts from Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government.
Instead of consolidating diverse social security schemes, Mr. Jaitley added three more to the existing basket of social security schemes.
One can group Government-funded Social security insurance schemes into three categories – health insurance, life insurance and pension insurance.
As many as 10 statutory insurance schemes from each of these categories are already operating under the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act 2008. These include Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), Aam Aadmi Bima Yojna (AABY), National Family Benefit Scheme and Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS).
The flagship scheme RSBY has ironically got a raw deal in the 2015-16 Budget through name change as well as massive cut in funds allocation.  
Moreover, in his anxiety to play the social welfare card to outwit UPA, Mr. Jaitley overlooked the urgency for the much-delayed bank and non-banking deposit insurance reforms. These are urgently needed to shore up public savings and to strengthen the stability of the non-performing assets-strained financial system.
To decode social security-centric political rhetoric in the country, start with Mr. Jaitley’s budget speech. He stated: “A large proportion of India’s population is without insurance of any kind - health, accidental or life. Worryingly, as our young population ages, it is also going to be pension-less.
“Encouraged by the success of the Pradhan Mantri Jan DhanYojana, I propose to work towards creating a universal social security system for all Indians, specially the poor and the underprivileged.
“The soon-to-be-launched Pradhan Mantri Suraksha BimaYojna will cover accidental death risk of Rs 2 lakh for a premium of just Rs12 per year. Similarly, we will also launch the Atal Pension Yojana, which will provide a defined pension, depending on the contribution, and its period. To encourage people to join this scheme, the Government will contribute 50% of the beneficiaries’ premium limited to Rs1,000 each year, for five years, in the new accounts opened before 31st December, 2015.”
Mr. Jaitley continued: “The third Social Security Scheme that I wish to announce is the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana which covers both natural and accidental death risk of Rs 2 lakhs. The premium will be Rs 330 per year, or less than one rupee per day, for the age group 18-50.”
A reader would get a familiar ring after comparing Mr. Jaitley’s announcements with the ones made by Jaswant Singh in his budget speech for 2003-04.
Mr. Singh stated: “For a large majority of our less advantaged citizens, easy access to good health services is just not there. In order to correct this and offer health protection, of some choice, the public sector general insurance companies have been encouraged to design a community-based universal health insurance scheme (UHIS) during 2003-04.
Under this scheme, a premium equivalent to Re.1 per day (or Rs.365 per year) for an individual, Rs.1.50 per day for a family of five, and Rs.2 per day for a family of seven, will entitle eligibility to get reimbursement of medical expenses up to Rs.30,000 towards hospitalisation, a cover for death due to accident for Rs.25,000, and compensation due to loss of earning at the rate of Rs.50 per day up to a maximum of 15 days. To make the scheme affordable to BPL families, the Government has decided to contribute Rs.100 per year towards their annual premium. Full details will be publicized shortly.”
He added: “I request Hon’ble Members to give this scheme the widest possible coverage in their constituencies. The benefits Sir, are real.”
He also announced insurance pension scheme named Varishtha Pension Bima Yojana for any citizen about the age of 55 years, apart from bring all powerloom workers under the Special Insurance Scheme, which will provide them insurance cover against death, accident and disability.
Mr. Singh’s predecessor Yashwant Sinha, had, similarly, announced Janashree Bima Yojana for the poor.
In his budget speech for 2000-01, Mr. Sinha stated: “More than one third of our population still lives below the poverty line. There is an imperative need to extend some social security cover to the poorest sections of our society. I have decided to introduce a new scheme of group insurance, “Janashree Bima Yojana”, under which beneficiaries will have insurance cover of Rs.20,000 in case of natural death, Rs.50,000 in case of accidental death or total permanent disability and Rs.25,000 for partial permanent disability due to accident.”
He added: “This scheme will lay a firm foundation for insurance cover to the poorest in our country.”
In January 2013, the firm foundation got knocked when Janashree Bima Yojana was merged with AABY. The latter scheme was announced by P. Chidambaram in his budget speech for 2007-08.
In the budget speech for subsequent year 2008-09, Mr. Chidambaram stated: “The Unorganised Sector Workers' Social Security Bill, 2007 is before Parliament. In anticipation of the Bill being made into law, Government has introduced three schemes that are designed to provide social security to workers in the unorganised sector in a phased manner.
 These are: AABY, RSBY and IGNOAPS. The last one was enlarged with effect from November 19, 2007 to include all persons over 65 years falling under the BPL category.
Of all schemes launched with political élan over the years, the one that is popular and has received recognition is RSBY. It covers Below Poverty Line population. Its ambit is now lately being widened to cover informal sector workers such street vendors, domestic workers and the workers who have worked for more than 15 days under MGNREGS.
According to an official RSBY evaluation committee, the scheme is being implemented in 24 states in India today, with a total of 3.75 crore card holders, providing coverage to a total of 11.25 crore beneficiaries at an average premium of approximately Rs. 400. A total of 25 lakh beneficiaries have availed hospitalization services at an average claim payout of approximately Rs. 5000 in 2013-14.
RSBY is smart card-based cashless health insurance scheme. The Centre pays 75% of the cost (premium) of the scheme with the balance 25% borne by the States. The Centre’s share of the cost is 90% in case of Jammu & Kashmir and North Eastern States. It provides annual hospitalization cover up to Rs. 30,000 for a family of five members through health insurance companies. A family has to pay only Rs 30 as registration fee to get the RSBY smart card.
It is not clear what has prompted Modi Government to rename RSBY as Social Security for Unorganised Sector Workers and prune down drastically the allocation of funds.
According to the Expenditure Budget Volume 2 of the 2015-16 Budget, “Erstwhile RSBY is now divided into two distinct components namely social security card for unorganized workers and provision for health services. As per the Government decision, the card would be provided by Ministry of Labour and Employment and health services would be provided by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.” 
The total allocation of funds for RSBY in 2015-16 budget is Rs 130 crore. Of this Rs. 30 crore is provided under Labour Ministry and the balance Rs 100 crore under Health Ministry. 
The revised allocation for this scheme for 2014-15 is Rs 20 crore under the former ministry and nil under the latter ministry. UPA Government had spent Rs 887.55 crore on this scheme 2013-14. 
The Budget stance on RSBY is at various strong backing and recent initiatives, notwithstanding the scheme’s deficiencies.
RSBY committee, for instance, in its draft final report submitted in September 2014 concluded: “Given that RSBY is a very significant intervention in the field of healthcare and if that intervention is to achieve positive results, it should be governed by norms which promote good health practices. The writing on the wall is clear enough. But do we have the will to act upon it that remains to be seen.”
The High Level Expert Group (HLEG) Report on Universal Health Coverage for India also pitched for upgradation of RSBY in its report released in November 2011.
HLEG recommended: “All government funded insurance schemes should, over time, be integrated with the UHC system. All health insurance cards should, in due course, be replaced by National Health Entitlement Cards. The technical and other capacities developed by the Ministry of Labour for the RSBY should be leveraged as the core of UHC operations – and transferred to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.”
Mr. Jaitley has steered cleared of visionary recommendations of HLEG that cover all aspects of healthcare including targeted increase in allocations for health sector in the annual budgets.
There also several non-statutory insurance schemes which provide for compensation to accident victims. The Department of Commerce, for instance, operates Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (PAIS) for growers who cultivate plantations. Similarly, The Kisan Credit Card issued by public sector banks is bundled with PAIS, health insurance and assets insurance.
As regards the health insurance schemes conceived and implemented by the States, the notable ones are Karantaka’s Vajpayee Arogya Shree scheme, Andhra’s and Telangana’s Rajiv Aarogyasri Community Health Insurance Scheme and Tamilnadu Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme.
States also are implementing several other social security insurance schemes with or without any linkage with insurance. Haryana’s list of social security schemes, for instance, include Old Age Samman Allowance Scheme and one for Dwarfs and Eunuch. Under the 2nd scheme, Dwarfs and Eunuch are given allowance @ Rs 500/- per month per beneficiary.
The bewildering range of insurance and non-insurance linked social security schemes in fact calls for serious study on their consolidation to optimize their cost as well as benefits.
As regards statutory bank deposits insurance limit, it has remained unchanged since May 1993 at Rs 1 lakh per deposit. This is the maximum amount a bank would pay to a depositor in case of its liquidation irrespective of the size of actual deposit.
RBI subsidiary, Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC),   provides deposits insurance by regularly collecting a tiny premium from the specified banks for the deposits of all types.
When the UPA was at the helm, Finance Ministry had approved DICGC’s proposal for increase in the deposit insurance coverage limit from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 2 lakh.
In a reply to question raised in Rajya Sabha in March 2013, the Ministry also disclosed that it had approved DICGC’s proposal to introduce risk-based premium for deposit insurance.
The approval was given with an advice to DICGC “to move to fully risk-based premium over a period of 3 years to moderate hike in the premium.”
This proposal has not been implemented till today as can be confirmed by visiting the websites of DICGC, RBI and the commercial banks. 
A DICGC official, when contacted, pointed out that the deposit insurance cover can be hiked only when the Government amends DICGC Act and issues fresh rules. No gazette notification has been issued so far to implement approved DICGC proposals.
The middle class expected Mr. Jaitley to shed light on this crucial issue. The saving class expects him to unveil a proposal to extend insurance cover to all deposits collected by all entities from the public. He should have unveiled proposal to enact a depositors’ protection law on the lines of the ones enacted by 14States.
It here pertinent to quote report of the Working Group on ‘Resolution Regime for Financial Institutions’submitted in January 2014, “The deposit insurance framework existing at present has remained unchanged for a long time (as pointed out by several committees in the past). The Group recommends that along with setting up of a resolution framework, reforms in deposit insurance may also be taken up to bring the system on the lines expected by international benchmarks, viz., Core Principles for Deposit Insurance Systems.”

Opposition Should Overcome Selective Amnesia Before Pitching for Select Committee on Insurance bill

   

                                                     (Image Courtesy: IndiaFirst Life Insurance)

The brewing political ruckus over Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill 2008 has blurred the distinction between the fact and fiction. 

News stories indicate that nine political parties including Congress and its UPA allies have given a notice to the Rajya Sabha Chairman demanding that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for scrutiny.

The Finance Minister Arun Jaitley is likely to introduce the revised Bill in Rajya Sabha on 4th August for which a four-hour discussion has been specified by the House’s Business Advisory Committee. He is expected to take the fizz out of the Opposition cacophony during the discussion as the new Government is on a strong footing as for as the facts and the domestic interests are concerned. 

The Opposition parties have contended that 97 official amendments to the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill 2008 (which is to be enacted as Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act 2014) have changed the character of the proposed law. It thus required fresh scrutiny and this should be done by a Select Committee.

The fact is that 88 official amendments were approved by the Cabinet during the UPA regime taking into account the recommendations and observations of Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Finance. Several changes are of “drafting nature”, which only implies an attempt to improve the text of the Bill.

The UPA and its outside allies should first overcome selective amnesia instead of demanding that the Bill be referred to the Select Committee. The Opposition should recall a release issued by Press Information Bureau on 4th October 2012, announcing the Cabinet decision to approve official amendments to the Bill. 

The release stated “Based on the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance, the Cabinet has approved amendments containing the following : The foreign equity cap is proposed to be kept at 49 per cent as provided in the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2008 as against the 26 percent. This is done in order to meet the growing capital requirement of insurance companies.”

Thus the decision to hike insurance FDI ceiling to 49% was taken by UPA and reiterated by it in spite of PSC’s recommendation to keep the cap at 26%. 

Later, the UPA Government had sent notice to Rajya Sabha on several occasions to introduce the Bill with 88 official amendments, which are available in the public domain.

(http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Insurance/Official%20amendments%20Insurance%20Laws%20Amendment%20Bill.pdf)

The last such notice was sent on 30th January 2014. The revised Bill, however, never, came up for introduction and discussion in the House.       

When Modi Government came to power, it mulled over the need to strike a balance between UPA Government’s resolve for 49% cap and PSC’s recommendation for retention of 26% ceiling, according to informed sources.  

The Finance Ministry discussed this issue with General Insurance Council, Life Insurance Council and representatives of insurance companies at a meeting held on 31st May 2014. 

According to informed sources, “it was unequivocally suggested by participants that the sector FDI limit needs to be raised to 49% from 26%, ideally without qualification. However, if felt necessary, the Government could impose safeguards like restriction of voting rights of foreign investors to 26%, requirement of the CEO/majority directors being Indian, etc. for a limited duration, subject to an early review.”

Thus, the strategy to balance the interest of foreign investors and insurance industry’s capital requirements, on the one hand, and the domestic concerns, on the other, emerged from within the industry.   

The NDA Government has accordingly decided to water down UPA’s unqualified FDI stance with safeguards as mooted by the industry. This should have actually appeased the Left parties, one of whose spokesperson has dubbed the revised bill as Modi Government’s “welcome gift to John Kerry, US Secretary of State.” 

The root cause of the row is the Modi Government's failure to put facts in public domain at appropriate time.  It is more tight-fisted than the UPA Government if the yardstick of putting information in public domain is concerned. This flaw led certain mainstream dailies into distorted reporting of the Cabinet decision to approve official amendments to the Bill and their placement in the Rajya Sabha. The news reports said Cabinet has approved increase in FDI in insurance companies from 26% to 49%. The fact is that this is already provided for in the the original 2008 Bill. The only significant news of the NDA Cabinet meeting should have been that it has decided to subject the proposed hike to stringent safeguards.   

Modi Government has thus substituted the provision of (7A)(b) of the Bill with the ones that provides for the FDI safeguards.

The original clause of the 2008 Bill reads as: “in which the aggregate holdings of equity shares by a foreign company, either by itself or through its subsidiary companies or its nominees, do not exceed forty-nine per cent paid-up equity capital of such Indian insurance company.”

In the revised bill, this paragraph would be substituted with another one that reads as: “In which the aggregate holdings of equity shares by a foreign company, either by itself or through its subsidiary companies or its nominees, do not exceed forty-nine percent paid equity capital of such insurance company, provided that the voting rights of such foreign shareholders shall not exceed twenty-six percent in the aggregate and the CEO of the said Indian insurance company, to be appointed by its Indian shareholders subject to approval of the competent authority, as may be prescribed, and the majority of the company’s directors, shall be Indian nationals.” 

Another important fact is that some official amendments envisage retention of the existing Sections of the Insurance Act that were proposed to changed under the original 2008 bill. 

A case in point is the official amendment for omission of clause 4 of the original bill. The revised clause reads as: “the existing section of the Act will be retained.” 

An amendment proposed in the original bill, for instance, would have enabled foreign insurers to operate in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) without being subject to regulatory control of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA). 

PSC, which recommended omission of Clause 4 and related clauses from the original bill, had pointed out that IRDA and domestic insurance industry had voiced grave concern over the proposed freedom to be granted to unregistered foreign insurers in SEZs. PSC actually did a meticulous job, leaving hardly any scope for setting up of Select Committee. 

When would Dr. Manmohan Singh shed his Modi phobia?

                                             Image Courtesy: PIB
The outgoing Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has been found wanting on many occasions. And he was found wanting too in his last address to the Nation that he delivered on 17th May 2014 before submitting his resignation to the President.
He today avoided mentioning Mr. Narendra Modi, who as Prime Ministerial candidate of BJP brought about a paradigm shift in the Indian polity. He lacked the courage to either acknowledge Mr. Modi’s achievement as a global marvel or to reiterate his outrageous perception about Mr. Modi as prospective Prime Minister.
On 3rd January 2014 at the televised national press conference, Dr. Singh had stated: “I have full confidence that the next Prime Minister will be from the UPA coalition, and that without discussing the merits of Mr. Narendra Modi, it will be disastrous for the country to have Shri Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister.” 
Answering a question on BJP’s allegation that he was the weakest PM, Dr. Singh had stated: “I do not believe that I have been a weak Prime Minister. That is for historians to judge. The BJP and its associates may say whatever they like. But if by “strong Prime Minister”, you mean that you preside over a mass massacre of innocent citizens on the streets of Ahmedabad, that is the measure of strength, I do not believe that sort of strength this country needs, least of all, in its Prime Minister.” (http://nareshminocha.com/index.php/polity/1613-pm-should-cast-off-modi-phobia-answer-his-failure-on-federalism)
By failing to make amends for his provocative allegations against Mr. Modi, he sounded hollow in his exit speech. He lacked conviction when he stated: “Today, as I prepare to lay down office, I am aware that well before the final judgment that we all await from the Almighty, there is judgment in the court of public opinion that all elected officials and governments are required to submit themselves to.”
He continued: “Fellow citizens, each one of us should respect the judgment that you have delivered. The just concluded elections have deepened the foundations of our democratic polity.”
Instead of pontificating to the public, Dr. Singh should have congratulated Mr. Modi and made amends for his “disastrous” comment, which was made not in the electoral heat but in a cool, intellectual ambience. He ought to have admitted that the electorate has given thumbs down to this remark. Had the PM done so, he would have respected the people’s verdict. He thus this time also failed to connect with the public.
The supporters of Dr. Singh would point out that he did congratulate Mr. Modi through the twitter. The tweet from PMO on the 16th May reads as: “Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh calls Shri Narendra Modi and congratulated him on his party's victory in the Lok Sabha elections.”
If a tweet can substitute what is said at a televised national event, then Dr. Singh could have very well delivered his listless, last address to the nation via the twitter, which is not accessed by majority of the electorate.
 By not forthrightly admitting that the public has proved him wrong, Dr. Singh has once again confirmed that he lacks statesmanship. (http://nareshminocha.com/index.php/polity/1177-public-expects-pm-to-rise-like-a-statesman-or-quit-naresh-minocha)
This reminds one of the famous quotes from the American author Dale Turner.   He once stated: “It is the highest form of self-respect to admit our errors and mistakes and make amends for them. To make a mistake is only an error in judgment, but to adhere to it when it is discovered shows infirmity of character.”
Dr. Singh infirmity is that he lacked intellectual honesty to stand up against what is wrong. He preferred to remain glued to the chair instead of risking his job by upholding his conviction.
Or, how does one explain his decision to acquiesce Rahul Gandhi’s diktat to increase in the ceiling on number of LPG cylinders to 12 from 9/family in January this year.
About two years back, Dr. Singh had strongly defended the Government’s decision to introduce the cap of 9 cylinders. Addressing the nation on 21st September 2012, PM had said: “Let me begin with the rise in diesel prices and the cap on LPG cylinders. We import almost 80% of our oil, and oil prices in the world market have increased sharply in the past four years. We did not pass on most of this price rise to you, so that we could protect you from hardship to the maximum extent possible. As a result, the subsidy on petroleum products has grown enormously.  It was Rs. 1 lakh 40 thousand crores last year.  If we had not acted, it would have been over Rs. 200,000 crores this year.”
He added: “Where would the money for this have come from? Money does not grow on trees. If we had not acted, it would have meant a higher fiscal deficit, that is, an unsustainable increase in government expenditure vis-a-vis government income. If unchecked, this would lead to a further steep rise in prices and a loss of confidence in our economy.”
Dr. Singh’s inability to uphold the stature of the chair he occupied not only led the public into losing confidence in his governance skills but also in his political leadership.
The verdict of scientifically minded historians and the Almighty on Dr. Singh’s prime ministership is unlikely to be different.
                                     

   Pawar gives credence to Jairam’s charge that Political Sherpas failed to communicate

                                                        Sharad Pawer  image courtesy: NCP

The Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar or rather his Ministry has unintentionally substantiated the allegation that UPA top brass did not communicate effectively its achievements and this, in turn, has harmed its electoral prospects.

Before discussing Agriculture Ministry’s belated disclosure that justifies the charge of UPA leadership was uncommunicative, recall what Union Rural Development minister Jairam Ramesh recently stated while bemoaning that top Congress leaders (effectively UPA top brass) were found lacking in political communication. 

Mr. Ramesh reportedly told PTI on 4th May: “I always believed that one of the foundations of politics is communication and communication from the very top...by the ‘sherpas’ alone. So, political communication is very, very important but unfortunately we were found lacking.”

Last month, the prime minister's communications adviser, Pankaj Pachauri stated: “The government is working. Its achievements are not reaching you. As for the media, the priorities are different.”

And now consider the proof of UPA sherpas being uncommunicative.  Mr. Pawar/Agriculture Ministry sat on two major overseas communications hailing India’s achievements for more than two years. These should have been flaunted as global certification of India’s sterling attainments on the farm front under the UPA Government. The impact of communicating what reputed, independent entities say about the success is far more important than blowing one's own trumpet in the form of UPA's report to the people.   

The communications addressed to Mr. Pawar are actually two separate letters from the chiefs of UN Food and Agriculture (FAO) and Manlia-based International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). 

Both FAO and IRRI had lauded India’s exceptional success on the food production front achieved due to joint efforts of all stakeholders especially the Eastern region and small and marginal farmers. The Agriculture Ministry has only now made the two letters public when the Sun has already set on the UPA and the Lok Sabha polls are in the last leg. 

The notings on the letters show that the decision to make the letters public was taken on 30th April/1st May 2014. It is important to observe that the letters were written during the tenure of Mr. Pawar as President of International Cricket Council. Mr. Pawar has often been criticized for allegedly giving more priority to cricket administration than to his ministerial portfolio.

In a letter dated 2nd March 2012, FAO Director General stated: “I would like to congratulate your Government’s achievement last year in stabilizing food prices, improving public distribution of food grains for ensuring access to food and nutrition, but especially the achievement of exceeding, for the first time in history, 100 million tons of rice production and 250 million tons of food grains. These are remarkable accomplishments of India’s Central, State and local governments, and especially of your small and marginal farmers. Particular gains in several Eastern States demonstrate the importance of government production programmes, infrastructure improvements, and supportive policies.”

Similarly, IRRI Director General, in a letter dated 23rd February 2012, stated: “We are thrilled to receive the information that the record rice harvest surpassing 100 million tons in India during Kharif 2011. I congratulate you and Indian agricultural officials and scientists for this remarkable achievement. This will have a very positive impact on regional and global food security.”  

The letter adds: “The most heartening aspect of increased rice production is the fact that a major contribution has come from eastern India, which is predominantly rainfed and stress-prone. The region was little affected by the first green revolution.”

If Pawar/Agriculture Ministry originally felt that it was not worthwhile to share international jubilation over good Indian news, then why it has now decided to put these letters in public domain (http://nfsm.gov.in/Circulars_Notifications/2014-15/FOODANDAGRICULTUREORGANIZATIONOFTHEUNITEDNATIONS.pdf)? 

Is it Mr. Pawar’s involvement in global cricket administration that made him overlook the importance of sharing the international recognition of Indian achievement with the public?