Desicritics Category: Politics: Governance

Broken Tigers

gautampatel — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:03:45 EDT

The official report is so clinical and impersonal that one might be tempted to skim it and move on. That would be a mistake. Behind the dry words of the official report is the heart-rending tale of a monumental tragedy.

Dr Rajesh Gopal is the Member-Secretary of the National Tiger Conservation Authority. His report of 1 June 2010 on the death of the Jhurjhura tigress in Bandhavgarh is a profoundly distressing dossier. On 18 May, three government vehicles entered the park in the late afternoon. One turned back shortly after. Of the other two, one was 'outsourced' (read privately procured) by the CEO of the Zilla Panchayat. The occupants included the CEO, the Range Officer, Dr KK Pandey, a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, relatives of the CEO and three children. These two vehicles remained in the park after it closed. They also went off-route. Both are illegal. Barrelling around, one of them hit the Jhurjhura tigress, the mother of three six-month old cubs.

Early next morning, visitors spotted the wounded tigress in evident distress. The Field Director immediately ordered the area cordoned off.

By 9.20 am, the tigress was dead. Post-mortem reports show that she died of massive internal haemorrhaging. Dr Gopal has recommended an urgent CBI probe. It has yet to happen. The three orphaned cubs have had to be moved to a zoo in Bhopal.

We're down four more tigers in the wild. And this is the third report of a tiger being hit by a vehicle in Bandhavgarh.

Less than a month later, the Pioneer newspaper in New Delhi broke even more ghastly news. The head of a local environmental committee was caught carrying the paws of a six-month tiger cub, one of a litter of three. This worthy gent and four chowkidars sawed off the cub's paws -- as an offering to a local tantric for a customized puja.

In Maharashtra, the Melghat Tiger Reserve, once the flagship of Project Tiger, is still under threat. Years ago, the State Government decided that the best way to protect the tigers of Melghat was to take away a third of their home, and denotified 500 sq kms of the reserve's 1500 sq kms. Of course, nobody bothered to tell the tiger.

Coincidentally, the predominant tree species here is teak.

Timely intervention by the High Court in Nagpur has ensured that that area is still part of the reserve but it is greatly degraded with a far lower tiger density. Dr Gopal concedes that there are hardly any tigers outside Protected Areas and that the only tiger-protection success stories are within tiger reserves. The Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve (TATR) has seen a resurgence of its tiger population, but without an increase in the reserve area. Merely increasing tiger numbers doesn't help. In the wild one tiger has a range of about 20 sq kms. Not in TATR: there the range seems to have been reduced to about 3 sq kms. And their habitats are constantly shrinking.

Official commitment to tiger conservation is questionable at best. In the seven months from November 2008, Maharashtra lost ten tigers, including four cubs; only one died a natural death. In a nine-year period, Assam lost 12 tigers. Orissa lost 40. Madhya Pradesh recently cleared a proposal for a segment of NH7 -- a huge multi-lane high-speed expressway -- right through the Kanha-Pench corridor; and, for good measure, a tourist resort.

Now we have the proposed amendments to the Wildlife (Protection) Act (WLP): principally increased fines and jail sentences. Nice figures, but that's all they are. Poaching needs a more severe deterrent. Fines don't address the problem. Protecting tigers is essential, and expensive. It also involves improving wildlife habitat, and the lot of humans in the vicinity.

One news report says that in Arunachal Pradesh, a tiger skin is worth about 5 kgs of rice. Meanwhile, our governments spend thousands of crores on airports and the Commonwealth Games and golf courses on mangroves. But money to spend on a planned and humane relocation of villages, on strengthening security in our tiger reserves, on improved protection, on larger buffer areas, on dealing with the poor who live in the vicinity of these areas? How could these ever be a priority?

Buildings and bridges and expressways can be built and rebuilt. When the last tiger dies, what have we left? We are not defined by things we can replace, but how we care for the things we cannot.

PostScript: In Bandhavgarh, the enquiry is on, the report awaited. The orphaned cubs are now in a special enclosure in the park, not in a zoo, being well cared for. Routes B & C in the park are closed. Mr Akshay Kumar Singh, the CEO of the Zilla Panchayat, has been transfered to a small town in Dhar district, Jabua. KK Pandey, the Assistant Vet has been suspended until the inquiry is over. Six people have been suspended so far. The Tiger Heaven resort is sealed.

This article was first published in the Mumbai Mirror and Bangalore Mirror on Friday, 9 July 2010, under different titles.

Which Bandh Was it - Bharat, India Or Hindustan?

Being Cynical — Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:31:12 EDT

I am not sure of the facts, but I don't think there would be any other country on this planet which has more than one name, leave alone three. Now this multi-naming convention of a country brings about a problem or two when somebody tries to attach the country with something. Just like yesterday's 'Bharat Bandh'. Why not an 'India Bandh' or 'Hindustan Bandh'? For that matter why not all three at once?

Before going into the details of the last bandh, it would be good if we could do some analysis on our triplet naming convention. On a micro level, I feel all three names represent a set of different populace of our country respectively.

Bharat :- Representing the set of poor chaps which many financial bodies (including our armchair advisory body - The Planning Commision) believe are not earning more than Rs 20/- per day and agony of these chaps in fact prompted all opposition parties to orchestrate this massive nation wide band. Roughly you can say this particular name represents the mamooli type fellows.

India :- Represents the chaps of the middle class or to say - a notch below the upper middle class. In short, guys like me, who blog around all nonsense and folks like you having enough time at hand to read this nonsense. These are the same entities who believe malls and multiplexes are the second best thing happening to mankind after the invention of Balaji Telefilms. We get annoyed and vouch against Gandhi Jayanti as sheer nonsense - not because one day's national productivity is going for a toss but because it is a dry day. This represents a considerable chunk of the nation.

Hindustan :- While Muslims (they have a different set of demands) don't seem to appreciate this jargon, the other side group do adore it more than their life. This name represents Folks from the camps of BJP, RSS, VHP and many similar like minded geniuses. As per them it was Hindustan from the time those two terrestrial elements collided somewhere in the sky to give birth to our universe. The king 'Bharat' of the Mahabharat fame can take a back seat and shouldn't shout or claim his name is the name of our country.

When there is so much diversity in the name of our country itself, it is bound to bring in some confusion when there is a Bandh called for it. So this bandh was for whom? The Bharat-vasies, the Indians or the Hindustanies? I am not sure of the other two species but it definitely hit the Indians the wrong way in terms of some unwanted discomfort. I had to drive down some 10 odd kilometers to my office without knowing what might be the official take on this whole strike. No sooner I was comfortable at my desk I got a mail from our HR head of complying with what L.K. Advani wants on that particular day and we were advised to take our ass out of the office premises sooner than later. Not to mention I had to drive back the same distance to my home and had a boring day all through without any cricket, Wimbledon or FIFA world cup match. That's certainly is disturbing. Isn't it?

Keeping aside the name of the Bandh or the minor suffering I had to go through, I do have my own set of perceptions for this particular event. Even if I am a sufferer, I still support this bandh, as truly being pointed out by few leaders that the bandh is all about the issues affecting all sections of the society, more so the Bharat Vasies (Aam- Aadmi). To gain something substantial, the history is a good proof that innocents had to bear some brunt. If this bandh is a matter of inconvenience to all those daily wage labourers as pointed by leaders of the ruling party then I don't think it is at all any convenient for the same labourer when he had to cough out Rs 90/- for per K.g Tur daal on daily basis. Don't believe then ask the chap in discussion which he feels is more inconvenient - the bandh or this daily extra coughing.

What we would achieve by this bandh, or if the food prices are going to get down the ladder after this, is a different discussion which might need few economists of Lord. Meghnad Desai's caliber to discuss. But for we lesser educated Indians it is all about having an off day with a possibility of having to turn up in the office over the weekend. I am not blaming the netas for this bandh call either. It is their fundamental right and I am also not questioning on their full time profession of worrying for the Aam-Aadmi. But to throw a bandh on all sorry faces by virtue of force as shown in few video clips is certainly not going to help much. The whole idea behind this bandh is well appreciated across all quarters and there are many who voluntarily joined the protest. Much more than anything it is a wake up call for few arrogant brats in our Finance as well as Agriculture ministry.

I am at the bottom of this post but still couldn't manage to find out why it is only a 'Bharat Bandh'. Perhaps I need a 'India Bandh' or 'Hindustan Bandh' next time around to figure out the difference.

PILfering Justice

gautampatel — Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:11:24 EDT

Last week, India's Law Minister, M Veerappa Moily, announced his shiny new 'National Litigation Policy'. It recognises that the single largest litigant in this country is the government itself, and outlines several measures to make the government an 'efficient and responsible' litigant.

The policy document is startling in its candour and boldness: 'Litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating'; 'false pleas and technical points will not be taken'; 'correct facts and all relevant documents will be placed before the court'; 'nothing will be suppressed from the court and there will be no attempt to mislead any court'; 'Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant'; and, best of all, 'the easy approach, 'let the court decide', must be eschewed and condemned'.

Every one of these statements is a tragic commentary on our civic governance, if indeed there is such a thing any longer, and on the manner in which government conducts itself vis-à-vis citizens. Anyone who has ever litigated against any avatar of the government knows just how infuriating is its persistence in defending the indefensible.

It wasn't always like this. There was a time when government officers assessed their cases fairly and instructed their lawyers to do the right thing. Government servants were open to reason. Today's officers are unwilling to take responsibility for rational decisions. Then there is that 800-pound gorilla in the room: audit. Everyone is terrified of 'audit observations'. It's safer to file something -- anything -- in court. Just get that monkey off your back.

Therefore the mantra, 'let the court decide', one that is attributed, usually wrongly, to a notion that court decisions are erratic. In most cases they aren't, at least no more than anywhere else. The statement only passes the buck: once a court decides, the government officer is absolved and can simply disclaim responsibility. When an officer cannot do what is right because he fears reprisals or questions from a pointyheaded number-cruncher, the result is a complete abdication of governance. So far as the policy tries to address these issues, it is on the right track.

It is not easy to see how any of these policy statements will translate into practice. Will government bureaucrats magically transform overnight? Will government lawyers suddenly become 'efficient and responsible'? The policy document correctly recognises that at least part of the problem stems from the terrible conditions and constraints under which government lawyers are forced to work: ill-equipped or even non-existent libraries, no support staff or facilities, dingy and crowded work areas. Remarkably, the policy acknowledges and addresses these issues too.

All of this is with the intention of trying to reduce the average pendency time of litigation to three years from its present average of 15 years. Yes, 15 years. By any measure, that's a completely unviable time-frame. The recent decision in the Bhopal case came after 26 years. Any attempt to reduce this delay has to be welcomed.

Yet there is one area in which the policy is muddled. The policy clearly views Public Interest Litigations (PILs) as a nuisance. It suggests that PIL petitioners should pay compensation should they ultimately lose when opposing 'public contracts'. Compensate whom? What 'public contracts'? Not long ago, a PIL challenged the expansion of the Mangalore airport. The PIL was lost. 167 people died. Everything those petitioners said now appears to be true. If Mr Moily's policy is to be accepted, the government ought to have been 'compensated'.

This reasoning assumes that all public contracts are beneficial and benign, all opposition mere bloody-mindedness. Not so. Mayawati's glitzy monster mall behind the Taj Mahal (the mall, of course, being Mayawati's monument to her special love, namely, money) was a public contract, stopped by the Supreme Court on a PIL. While the judicial track record on PILs has been uneven at best, the Supreme Court's perhaps most of all -- very different considerations seem to apply to the NCR than to the rest of the country -- PILs continue to be an effective check on unthinking, uncaring and errant governments. Nothing else explains the 'public contract' that proposes an expressway through the tiger reserves of Kanha and Pench. Or spending hundreds of crores on statues of historical figures in the middle of the sea, while our pensioners go without, and our farmers commit suicide. PILs are not mere obstructions. They are a balancing mechanism, as any responsible and efficient litigant should recognise.

(A slightly different version of this article first appeared in the Mumbai Mirror and Bangalore Mirror with the title "The PILfering of justice")

An Evening With Aurangzeb

Being Cynical — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:26:37 EDT

Some days back one of my office friends sent out a mail on the very attitude of we Indians glorifying entities of history more than what they deserve, and ornamenting them with a larger than life image. In the same way, we malign few others to the core making them look no lesser than Amrish Puri of Mugambo fame.

What drives us to be so judgemental and conclusive without knowing the facts? Is it the bad and wrong history that been taught via the millions of government supplied history books, where truth is far fetched as history is fabricated to support someones ego and wants? The fact is good history is rarely about good guys and bad guys but unfortunately we follow this simplistic logic while going over our history, resulting in putting on a perception pair of glasses while engrossing it. I believe that history should be presented as it is, no biasing, no fabrication or no forced conclusion and the readers should be left to decide the good or the bad for themselves. I was sure that our text books are being pathetically modified, God knows for what and whom, so I always had a fascination for all those controversial & bad characters or so being pictured in books.

Do you remember the emperor who was a religious Muslim, anti Hindu? Who tried to forcefully convert them and taxed them for visiting their religious place? You got it: The poor snobbish chap, the Aurangzeb. I had a long fascination of meeting this brat, just to see how a person can be so cruel and bad. Thanks to Albert Einstein and his Time-machine which I could lay my hand one fine day accidentally. Punched all the red, green, yellow buttons as shown in some old hindi movies. Boom!! there I go. Out of nothing I found myself in front of the Red Fort in Agra in a jiffy. Goodness gracious, there is the emperor himself sitting at the top left block of the fort and stitching caps the Muslims put on. I can easily see the outline of his face through the illumination of the lamp in front him. I must have made some noise on my time defying arrival, I thought as the emperor looked at me and visibly astonished with my look, artier and the funny looking stuff I am riding. Being aware of his attitude towards we Hindus, as per the books I was dearly fearing for my life. No sooner my thoughts started to take wing, the main door opened with a Khali looking guy jumped out asking me to accompany him as the Sultan himself wants to see me in close ranges. Oh God, save me. Save me from getting converted or worst loosing my life is all I was thinking while moving to the front door of the fort.

As I entered inside, I could see the small temple at the corner with a lady lightning a Diya. The lady must be from this bad guy's harem I thought, which later on was clarified to me that the temple is there as the belief of the Sultan is to respect all religions equally. Once the introduction was over I was comfortably being placed in front of the emperor, he enquired about my locality and place. I don't know if the Sultan did understood much about the time-machine but could easily tell that I am from a future time. When asked about the purpose of my visit, I begged for my life before explaining all the history that we are taught and my subsequent fascination of meeting a real bad guy. A huge laughter followed which we can only associate with a Sultan. Let me correct your history a bit, if you are ready to believe me said the emperor. I couldn't decline this generous offer. Could I? Shoot your queries ordered the Sultan..

It is primarily suggested that you were an anti Hindu and believed in forced conversion. What is the ratio of Hindu and Muslim at present he asked. 4:1 I replied. That's the same now also. He looked happy. See if I am so fond of conversion then let me assure you, there wouldn't have a single Hindu roaming around in this part of the world, let alone being four times than the Muslims. I am ruling for last 50 years and Mughals for last 1000 years, if I had wished all would have been converted to Islam long back. I hope I answered this query of yours, ended the Sultan politely. But you were never a pro Hindu either, like your forefathers: Akbar or Jahangir, in fact you hate Hindus, I argued. Is it? he said. If I am guilty of such a bigotry then how come I have a Hindu as my military commander-in-chief? when I could have easily kept an efficient Muslim for the same post. In fact today all my state policies are formulated by Hindus, he added. For your info two Hindus hold the highest post in the state treasury. He looked somewhat upset.

After a brief silence he started again. Even some prejudiced Muslims question my decision on keeping non-Muslims in such high posts. But I believe in Sharia, which demands right persons in right position. This is the reason why Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh are all holding high administrative posts. He ended this long sentence with a shy. I don't know why my forefathers are shown in a brighter light for their multi-ethnic culture of their court where Hindus were favored, when they had only 14 Hindu Mansabdars (High officials), I have 148 of them. He finished, still breathing heavily.

But our history says that you have demolished many temples, I asked. With a smile in his lips he said, same goes here also. If I had such an intention then, there would have been no temple standing by now, let alone the small one that you are seeing at the corner of this fort. He then suddenly asked one of his orderly in Urdu to bring some documents. On the contrary I have donated huge state estates for building temples and supports thereof in Benaras, Kashmir or elsewhere. He said this while showing me the documented proofs that he has just asked for. Go to Balaji temple and there you would find a stone inscription showing it is me who has commissioned the construction of it, he added. In fact I have granted land for Kasi, Varanasi temples, he said this with frustration while showing me another set of documents.

But didn't you re-install the Jizya tax on Hindus for travel to religious places which were abolished by your forefathers ? Which tax on what ? He seemed bewildered. Oh God. Jizya was never a tax for holy visit but it has something to do with state's development or best you can say a war tax. It is only collected from able-bodied non-Muslims of this state who did not want to volunteer in the defense of the state. He explained. We even don't collect it from women, immature male, old male or guys who are fighting for the safeguard of the state. The tax is to make sure that the lives of the tax payers is safeguarded during war. If by any manner the state fails to protect a tax payer then the total tax is returned back with interest. let me add to this he said. The Zakat (2.5% of the savings) and Ushr (10% of the agricultural product) were collected from Muslims who have some wealth, of course after a certain threshold called Nisab.The Muslims also pay Sadaqah, Fitrah and Khums, which are never charged from Hindus. As a matter of fact the per capita collection from Muslims are many fold than what we collect from Hindus. He explained while showing me another set of documents as proof of his explanation. In fact I have abolished 65 different type of taxes on Hindus there by incurring a 50 million loss to the state treasury. Now he was visibly upset over us on fabricating the history intentionally to show him in a bad light. As I was still with a huge fear within sitting alongside, perhaps the best, scholar, magnanimous, tolerant and far sighted emperor India has ever had, I though it is best for my health and well being to stop this questionnaire then and there.

Not before I was treated with all the Muglai delicacies, I wasn't allowed to leave. But before I could leave the great emperor back in history I didn't forget to ask him the reason on why he himself is stitching the caps when he replied his household runs on the money he earns from this stitching and the Korans that he sells which he himself again writes in his own hand, as he never consumes a single penny from state treasury for his personal reasons. Hats off to this great emperor and I strongly feel, it is high time we change or rather correct our history for good. Sir I admire you.

P.S :- I am a hardcore, orthodox Hindu.

Rhetoric?

Kaushik Chatterji — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:49:24 EDT

More than 77% of our country's population lives on less than 20 Rs per day. This is not any random statistic I just came up with - it is the official figure provided by the NCEUS. The top 1% - the rich - control a ridiculous amount of wealth. The figure's probably not as obscene as the USA, but it's more worrisome given our population. Then again, 1% of 110 crore - 1.1 crore - can hardly be termed as insignificant. Even the top 0.01% - the bracket that is ordinarily called "super rich" - constitutes 1.1 lakh people, but it is only when we have a look at those levels that we get even a vague idea of concentration of wealth and the associated disparities.

But we, who are firmly rooted in and around the middle of that 22% bracket, continue not to give a damn about that 77%. Instead, we scramble to lap up whatever little crumbs are thrown our way by that 1%. Some of us vote (many of us don't even do that), plan (but don't evade) our taxes and work hard (and while we are at it, step over tons of people who are in a similar position as us if not worse off). We work hard just so that our overlords feel pleased and in a moment of weakness decide to marginally increment the amount of crumbs to be thrown our way. Our overlords - a bunch of people who are amassing wealth by multiples of thousands of crores and openly competing against each other in terms of their personal collections of private yachts and jets, and have the clout to get away with genocide over and over again, let alone something as petty as murder. Our overlords - the owners of big businesses, the industrialists, the corporates, the capitalists; the parliamentarians and other so-called democratic politicians, as well as the highest circles of bureaucracy; the media, redundant as it is to mention it separately since it is nothing but just another really big business.

Rhetoric? Yes. Each and every aforementioned word, nay, character even. Close your eyes and close this tab/window. Immediately. Do not, I repeat, do not snap out of the dream. Pay 200 bucks to see a film that cost 60 crores to make and market in a plush multiplex. Be fooled by clever advertising, give in to temptation and spend your hard-earned money on things that do not matter. Better still, adopt a pseudo-liberal stance, optimize your social media presence and make yourself heard - on blogs, forums, Twitter, Facebook, online, offline, newspaper readers' opinion columns, news channel talk shows, etc. etc. Shun religion, caste, region, language, community, gender and all those other entities that cause biases and divides. All but one, that is. Money, 'coz if it weren't for the economically privileged, how would these biases persist and how would we be made privy to their existence?

Once upon a time, it might have been the White Man's Burden, but as things stand now, especially in our country, tearing down the walls that stand between people is the Rich Man's Burden. All we - we who are not yet rich but who aren't exactly struggling to make ends meet - need to do is support them, and maintain just this one partition - the one that is root cause of each and every other one of them.

Book Review: Open Government

Ganadeva Bandyopadhyay — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:51:16 EDT

Open Government, the book under review is a collection of articles from professionals and notable stakeholders in governance, primarily from US perspective. With thirty-four chapters, this is a fairly fat book filled with case studies and opinions of various participants.

Some of the measures of government reform in this context include the recently recognized roles of CTO and CIO as part of the government similar to major business and corporations.

One of the important points made in one of the chapters "Government as a Platform" is that any functional democracy needs to have all inclusive opinions from maximum stakeholders possible. The advantage of diverse public discourse is that wrong opinions tend to cancel each other, leaving the the best ones to be considered for implementation. In present times, with lot of the population being internet-savvy, it is definitely a step forward to include online tools and forums for determining the public opinion.

There are two interesting examples of open government in practice given in this book. These are the websites followthemoney and maplight. The first of these is the website of National Institute on Money in State Politics tracking political donation data. The latter is a public domain database seeking to track money and related influence in legislatures.

To summarize, the book seems to have more chapters than necessary to bring out the perspective. Some chapters are too technical and doubtful to give insight to the targeted audience. With a strong leaning for US examples and discussions, it leaves advancements in other countries out of scope. This is however a good way to see merging of technology in administrations in different ways.

Delusional in Afghanistan

commonsense — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:04:32 EDT

I cringe whenever I encounter a cliché – except when I deploy them myself. A quote that has surely become clichéd is George Santayana’s observation - 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'. While quite obviously history cannot repeat itself like in the Groundhog Day movie, there are surely lessons to be learnt from the past. The wise old man Marx had another insightful quip that gets to the heart of the matter – history repeats itself, “occurring first as tragedy, the second time as farce.” The quagmire in Afghanistan, deepened by the decision to commit 30,000 more soldiers by President Obama is anything but farce. It occupies a space between tragedy and farce.

At a time when other members of the so-called coalition have already decided to quit or have deployed only a token number of soldiers, those in charge of the military operations in Afghanistan continue to be talking in terms of “victory”. Perhaps such delusions are necessary to lubricate actions in the realm of unreality. During the Vietnam War, there was no shortage of claims that victory was just around the proverbial corner, the proverbial light was imminent at the end of the metaphorical tunnel. Such claims were buttressed by presumably by objective, empirical facts of body counts of dead Vietnamese. Operations Research, now applied to many fields, owes its origins to the complex, multifaceted analysis of dead Vietnamese insurgents. No need to point out what the end result was, even though there are some Republican types who still believe that the US lost the Vietnam war because their “hands were tied” and of course due to the “liberal media”.

The quagmire in Afghanistan is of course not identical to Vietnam. No social context is ever identical. Yet the broad parallels are hard to ignore. Those of us who are old enough to remember Vietnam resist the déjà vu. Particularly when it comes to over the top delusions about impending “victory” (which of course is never defined), the so-called discovery of a bounty of minerals that may fuel a wealthy, orderly Afghanistan in the future. Juxtaposed with such delusions are recent reports of in the New York Times of the US army paying out millions of dollars to warlords as “protection money” for their military convoys. The range of players who benefit or hope to benefit from this tragedy – financially, geopolitically, professionally, trappings of power etc. – is virtually unlimited. It is of course more than a tad silly to connect global capitalism directly to the situation in Afghanistan. However it would be a mistake to ignore its role at a variety of level – from geopolitical rivalries driven by the need to control resources – oil and minerals – to the demonstration of power to other potential rivals, particularly China. These concerns quite obviously do not dictate the day-to-day twists and turns of policy and disagreements such as the one between General McChrystal. Nor do they obviously directly factor in the internal rivalries within Afghanistan – between the supporters and detractors of Taliban. But the sordid history of the genesis of the Taliban cannot obviously be unhinged from the geopolitical rivalry between the ex-Soviet Union and the US.

Folks such as Morris are of course well within their rights to ask “Well CS, what then is your solution” just as I have the right to respond, perhaps a tad defensively “Just because I have no instant solutions does not mean that I cannot weigh in”. And throw back the issue of clear-cut solutions to Morris and we can all reasonably predict where he/she will eventually lead us. At this stage, all we can say is that the quagmire will get far worse before it will ever lurch towards a semblance of normalcy. Inane platitudes such as these should not be dismissed out of hand particularly when no easy resolution is in the works. An easy way out would be to take refuge in the pessimism of philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer’s realistic, non-delusional claim that surely applies to all sides engaged in Afghanistan: “In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief period

Bhopal : A Gas Tragedy

Being Cynical — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:40:25 EDT

I was confused then and I am worried now. And still it has got nothing to do with Terrorism, Maoists or Himesh Reshamiya. Being a kid when the damn thing happened, I had little or no idea on this whole gas issue. Or I should say I had an overtly embarrassing confusion on the very word called Gas. I still remember when our small classroom filled with more than required number of pupils thrown into some unbearable smell of last night's Paratha and Dahi Wada, our class teacher pointed at the culprit with her ever so shrinking nose and advised him to maintain some civic sense and refrain himself from producing unwanted gas in public places. So when it came to the Bhopal catastrophe of some uncontrolled gas leak my knowledge was limited to the Dahi Wada aspect of it and not beyond. So when this gas did manage to kill some 20000 odd people it took me by surprise, as I never had an idea that a gas other than make you vomit does have some killer instincts too.

Now the worry for me after 26 years of the said gas leak is the way we handled it. When I say we, it constitutes all citizens, our then able government and the governments to follow, our judiciary, Arjun Singh with that cap, the peon at the investigation agency, et all. If this farce of 26 years is to be termed as an effort to give justice to all those who suffered, then let me assure you, it failed more miserably and quickly than Jugal Hansraj's bollywood career. I would say my class teacher handled the gas leak situation better and made sure the culprit beg an apology for his unwanted behaviour and advised all others not to repeat this mistake of our friend ever. But in case of the Bhopal leak we as a country failed decisively on all aspects - starting from rehabilitating the sufferers to bringing the culprits to book.

We never value the lives of our countrymen is a well known fact, but never been displayed so openly before Bhopal. The Anderson chap, who was touted to be the culprit in chief very ceremoniously being taken out of the country by government chartered flight was nothing less than some Priyadarsan's comedy movie. Now when asked what made the government take so much pain in transporting perhaps the biggest offender of Indian law, we hear some idiotic version of law and order going haywire if he remained stationed in Bhopal. If even this argument is taken on face value, it still baffles me and million others on why this chap was allowed to fly out almost giving him a state honour? He could have easily been dumped in some jail in Delhi, if not Tihar and the law should have been allowed to take it from there.

The sharp contrast of British Petroleum paying 20 billion to USA for killing few Turtles and Octopuses in Gulf Of Mexico to the $450 compensation for each dead corpus in Bhopal is nothing short of projecting ourselves as a bunch of jokers. If this comedy was not enough the apprehended smaller fishes were handed a paltry 2 years jail term and bailed out in 58 minutes is rubbing salt in the wounds. Two years jail term for 20000 deaths? doesn't it look like something has gone horribly wrong somewhere? Looking at these statistics I don't think we have any authority to hang Afzal Guru or Kasab, if we judge all these cases on the same yard stick. Well Hang on - I don't think these two jokers would ever be hanged though.

Now what have we achieved after 26 years? A sour mouth and red ass, 450 dollars each which I guess the average outgoing US spoiled brat might be spending in strip clubs over the weekend, a new avatar of Arjun Singh plus the white cap, Manish Tiwari becoming a definition of idiocy and as usual Bharat Ratna Rajiv Gandhi (then Prime Minister) projected as the sole person in the face of the planet who seriously wanted justice to be delivered to the gas victims. So many achievements, I must say.

Thanks to the media, the case was revisited by the present government and some useless committee did finally advised the prime minister on how the whole thing has gone wrong. But justice seems to be far from being delivered. The Anderson fellow is enjoying his golf and National Football League and cheering from Chicago Bears, while we as a nation are deep in blame game and some funny looking jingoism. None seems to stand accountable. Arjun Singh (Minus the white cap) washed off his hands by pointing the blame to the dead Narashima Rao, who in turn might be pointing to Rajiv Gandhi somewhere up in the heaven and we lesser mortals are searching for credible answers down below on planet earth.

National disgust is a milder word. I always thought for 2010 the biggest national shame would be the Commonwealth Games, but was proven wrong as the biggest shame for this financial year came at least 4 months early. I as well as all know, nothing is going to come out of this in future. We are licking our Bhopal wounds and would continue to do so. Only prayer is that no more national shame be brought in prior to the last national shame for this year - The commonwealth games. Till then move on and plan your next holiday somewhere in Andaman & Nicobar. Good Night!

Right to Information, State Accountability, and Wikileaks

Ruchi — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:53:53 EDT

Please see note below

There is natural tension between the State and the public on the question of transparency. Authoritarian states by definition limit access to information. In democratic states, democracy manifests itself as elections, which reduces incentive for routine oversight (to delay judgment) and in case of ruling government’s culpability, creates a disincentive for transparency. In addition, democratic states necessarily follow a capitalist model of development, either by choice or obligation (IMF, World Bank, Free Trade Agreements). While the premise of a democratic government is at least partly altruistic and redistributive (in addition to security and maintenance of law and order) thereby deriving the moral rationale for taxation, the premise of capitalism is the pursuit of self-interest and maximization of profit for a small group of people. Internally as well, corporations aren’t democratic – divergent interests are resolved not by open discussion but by pure might (preferential ownership; bulk of the share holders don’t have voting rights). With increasing size of private corporations and increasing privatization of governance, democratic states are adopting corporate ethos of opacity, consolidation of power and growing authoritarianism. This authoritarian tendency is in the true sense of the phrase, not “politically correct” and in the past fifteen years, sixty countries have passed laws to facilitate public access to state information. However institutional reticence to transparency is evidenced by the fact that only a fraction of these countries have a whistleblower’s law[1]to protect the individual who exposes institutional corruption from reprisal. When the institution in question is public, states with whistleblower’s law frequently undermine their own legislation[2] by blocking publicity, investigation, and counter intuitively pressing criminal charges on the whistleblower! The last is aimed at deterring future whistleblowers, and stems from the desire to retain control – of fragmentary transparency and hence accountability – to release only that information, the consequences of which can be accommodated in business as usual, and to calculatedly deploy state infrastructure against the will of the people.

There are obvious limits of a state legislated and managed RTI/FOI regime: first and foremost, the State defines the categories of exempt information. Security and intelligence agencies are both outside the ambit, with good rationale though increasingly less defensible given their disproportionate contribution to instances of human rights violations. Exempt categories are further susceptible to spurious classification, where information is withheld not to preserve the integrity and/or security of the State but its machinery and/or functionaries. Second, there are many ways of subverting the spirit of the act through shoddy implementation (conveniently transferring culpability to a frontline official from the institution). In India, this manifests itself as lack of information management, ignoring Section 4 (proactive dissemination), harassing applicants, convoluted processes, high pendency[3] etc. Lastly, since the application for information is initiated by a beneficiary, there are two drawbacks: the disadvantage of being an outsider who cannot know of the universe of relevant information; second, a David and Goliath scenario pitching an individual against the might of the State to obtain information of public interest but without the force of the citizen collective.

An independent website, Wikileaks (launched in 2006) aims to fill this gap. “WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public. […] WikiLeaks information is distributed across many jurisdictions, organizations and individuals. Once a document published it is essentially impossible to censor[4].” Notable publications of the website include a report on toxic dumping in Africa by Trafigura, a US military video that shows American soldiers killing eighteen people in Baghdad including two Reuters photographers, Climategate emails, and tax evasion by American citizens in connivance with Swiss bank, Julius Baer. In India, Wikileaks published the UIDAI approach document in November 2009. It’s interesting to note that the respective state apparatuses had blocked public access to this information: UK ordered a super injunction[5] against the publication of Trafigura report; Reuters tried unsuccessfully to obtain the Baghdad video for three years under the American FOIA; Julius Baer succeeded in temporarily knocking down the Wikileaks website after obtaining a permanent injunction against the website and domain registrar in a California court; and allegedly numerous RTI applications had been made to get more information about the UID project. Julian Assange, one of the founders of the website says, “Open government is strongly correlated to quality of life. Open government answers injustice rather than causing it (plans which cause injustice are revealed and opposed before implementation). Open government exposes, and so corrects, corruption. Historically, the most resilient form of open government is one where leaking and publication is easy. Public leaking, being an act of ethical defection to the majority, is by its nature a democratising force.” There are some features that make Wikileaks or a similar concept of a private leaking system worth consideration:

Establishes global accountability: Freedom of information laws often mandate citizenship of the country. However, in a globalized world, states are accountable not to just their citizens, but to the global citizenry. America’s “war against terror” has changed the global landscape; the financial crisis of 2007-2010 has had global consequences; global warming affects us all. The need for concerted global action makes global transparency imperative. For instance, one classified CIA report on shoring support in Europe for the war in Afghanistan states “public apathy enables leaders to ignore voters” and goes on to discuss the different ways to manipulate the public in France/Germany to support their country’s continued presence in Afghanistan. The report is an indictment of the unilateral nature of America’s battle in Afghanistan and its disdain for democracy.
Ensures anonymity of the whistleblower: States are increasingly crushing dissidence through draconian laws and their application. Obama despite campaigning on a platform of transparency is aggressively pursuing Bush-era whistleblowers, all of who exposed high-level illegal activity. In India, the government has cynically used TADA, POTA and UAPA essentially classifying the right to dissent in a democracy as terrorism. In this situation, not only is it impossible for the whistleblower to use formal mechanisms to trigger correction but there’s also a high probability of reprisal against the individual. India’s most famous whistleblower, Satyendra Dubey was murdered in 2003[6] after writing to then Prime Minister, Vajpayee about high-level corruption in the NHAI (despite widespread outrage, India has not passed a whistleblower’s law). Further anonymizing the individual’s identity in no way detracts from the substance of the leak, and also reduces incentive to publish information for personal profit. Wikileaks operates a series of complex technological and other measures to protect sources, and claims that no source has been revealed in the three years of its operations[7].
Circumvents state: A question worth asking is whether the state can be held accountable through state legislated and controlled mechanisms. History is replete with examples where the State has used the police, investigative agencies and even the judiciary for its own ends. In India, the two main anticorruption agencies, CBI and CVC lack independence and frequently close investigations with questionable conclusions[8]. Governments also prevent public mobilization with the use of gag orders[9], not only to suppress and censor information, but also the fact that the information has been suppressed!
Uncovers spurious classification into exempt categories: The history of leaked classified documents reveal content kept secret not to protect the security/integrity of the State but to protect the might/authority of the State machinery. This brings into the public domain unconstitutional/unethical means adopted by the Government and hidden from its constituents through false classification.
Exposes state hypocrisy: Even though China has a Freedom of Information Act, it blocks all URLs with the word “wikileaks” in it[10]. The US, which can’t censor so obviously commissioned a counterintelligence report to take down Wikileaks, perversely citing China’s blanket blocking as justification.
Expedites timelines: In India, publishing the UID document online forced the Chairman, Nandan Nilekani to release the document as well, leading to increased media coverage and public discourse on a government project of great public interest. In a less direct measure, the publication of the Baghdad video and report on Afghanistan will decrease domestic and international support for US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan increasing pressure for disengagement.

While the purpose of such institutions is to promote transparency and accountability in large corporations, the integrity[11] of such institutions themselves is internally policed and inextricably linked with the integrity of its executives. Opacity is built into the Wikileaks model (understandably given the many attempts to take down the site) however this lends itself to unaccountable discretion to filter information – what is received, what is put out, how and when it’s put out. Legitimacy of democratic state institutions is contingent on, inter alia, equal treatment of all citizens and constituencies through due process of law – citizens voluntarily give up some freedoms to the state under this very assurance – however private institutions are not obligated to neutrality. For Wikileaks to serve as an alternative/complement to legislated freedom of information regimes, it must evolve mechanisms to ensure (both in implementation and appearance) that its internal bias is not reflected in the information put out. Finally the sticking point with both Wikileaks and Freedom of Information laws is that information does not exist in a vacuum. Merely making information public will not necessarily catalyze social change – information must also be accessible (understandable). Moreover for information to have meaning, corresponding mechanisms must be developed to force (and sustain) state accountability. Institutions have longevity that often transcends the people who direct it, and while ad-hoc embarrassing information may have consequences at the personal/party level, institutions will remain unaffected without an active inquisitive citizenry.

Note: Bulk of this piece was written before the arrest of Bradley Manning for being the alleged source of the Iraq video and also the Garani massacre in Afghanistan. Bradley apparently initiated a series of chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo and revealed his identity. Based on the heavily edited chat transcripts put out Wired, it is evident that Lamo baited Bradley in these chats, asking him incriminating questions with the full intention of outing him (there is also the disturbing question of when government officials were involved and their complicity in eliciting confession). In the fallout, Wikileaks is under attack and founder, Julian Assange hunted by the US DoD. Even three weeks after arrest,Bradley Manning has not been chargesheeted. Bradey, Julian and other Wikileaks members are all on the right side of history, and deserve our support. To learn more, please follow Wikileaks on Twitter or visit the Wikileaks site and follow links from there

[1] A whistleblower brings to the public notice an act of institutional wrongdoing by an employee, and is therefore a natural complement to freedom of information laws.

Countries with existing/draft whistleblower laws: UK (Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998); US (Whistleblowers Protect Act of 1989, 1994); South Africa (Protected Disclosures Act, 2000), Australia, Norway, Canada, South Korea, Argentina, Russia, Slovakia, Mexico and Nigeria

[2] Obama’s pursuit and escalation of Bush era whistleblowers; Super injunctions in UK

[3] A recent Delhi HC judgment struck down single benches as unconstitutional ruling that all information commissioners should pass judgments together. This will increase pendency further

[4] Wikileaks .Org– About Us

[5] Gag order in the UK, which prohibits publicizing even the fact of gagging

[6] Satyendra Dubey’s case was closed in March 2010 by the CBI, which concluded that the murder was the fall-out of a botched robbery and not connected to the alleged criminal nexus at NHAI

[7] Bradley Manning was recently detained by the US military for being the alleged source of the Iraq video and also the Garani massacre in Afghanistan. Note: Bradley revealed his identity himself in a series of online chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo.

[8] Lalu Yadav, Mayawati, Shibu Soren etc

[9] US: Patriot Act National Security Letter; UK: super injunctions

[10] Wikileaks hosts multiple cover sites (mirror sites with different names) to allow access even from China. These cover sites change frequently, and current names can be googled outside of China

[11] Some comments by Julian Assange on the financial and attribution integrity of Wikileaks

Our funds audited according to German, Australian, Swedish, French, Swiss and US law and most of our funds are even blind to us to prevent donor influence.
There has never been a documented case of WikiLeaks misattributing a document. We have a perfect record over three years of publishing. Compare this record with any other publisher of political materials.
In the US a lot of the anti-wikileaks propaganda comes from military apologists attempting to undermine the strength of http://collateralmurder.com/ by attacking its messenger. However, read that website carefully and all statements made in the video itself. You will see that even after other details have come to light, none require corrections. Why? Because we fact checked–to the degree of sending people to the most dangerous part of Baghdad during election time to do it. Who else has such demanding standards?
We push the ideal of “scientific journalism” — all primary sources for every article made available. It’s our invention because we love fact-checking and want others to check our facts to prove our good work.
On the balance issue. You’re right. We don’t believe in “balance”—we believe in accuracy and fairness. That is an important difference and a higher standard. The truth is not revealed by balancing the lies of competing powergroups–that is a job for politicians. We, as servants of the historical record, have a higher standard.

The BJP's Revivalism

Abhishek — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:33:50 EDT

Wikipedia describes a "banana republic" as "a country that is politically unstable, dependent on limited agriculture, and ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy, and corrupt elite". While the original definition may not hold true in present context, it is sufficient to convey the literal sense of the term for India. We are hurtling towards a generalised chaos, an anarchy and till the time a radical solution to this is hammered out, we as the one of the world's most populous nations would be sitting ducks for getting annexed to "foreign powers".

As it is, the ruling elite is morally bankrupt. We have an "appointed prime minister", a shadow cabinet and all powerful ruling elite that is not answerable to the public that elected them in the first place. The sham quote of democracy,"of the people, for the people and by the people" has been done to death by raping the innards of spirit of democracy. The historical blunders and wrongs have never been set right, a whole new generation of Macaulayites has been spawned and divorced from the rich cultural heritage and the corruption kick back black economy is now a large percentage of the country's GDP. The systematic loot is in full frontal view of the public and a pliable media is for the askance.

In the gloom and doom, we need a able leader. An extra-ordinary political party that shakes up the country's slumber, and asks the inevitable questions. A party that leads us from darkness to light and imbibes the true sense of leadership and purpose. The Bharatiya Janata Party is one party which has the potential, the gumption and the foresight to lead the country from the front.

The pill may be very bitter to swallow. The educated elite are unwilling to accept the writing on the wall. They quote the oft repeated "desecration" of the "minorities". The black year of Gujarat riots. All the while conveniently associating the theory of "automatic combustion" of Railway bogies. They forget that the poor unarmed Hindus were attacked by a violent mob WITHOUT any provocation. A "backlash" was too hard to handle. But of course. The bleeding heart secularists and the champions of human rights had to commit perjury and falsification of available evidence to swing the media in it's favour. The likes of NDTV (with a motivated leftist agenda) crowed about the "loss of innocent human lives" without any iota of evidence.

Yet, the human mind is frail. We as a new whole generation are not given to a sensible political discourse. We resort to the likes of Slimes (or toiLET) paper as if it is the last word on "journalism". The dimwit moronish commentators suck up to the ruling elite because they draw their sustenance and possible glory from that. Still, no debate. No informed political commentary.

Admittedly, BJP has been in an disarray. More specifically after the last general elections, BJP has not been able to come to terms with the fact that incumbency factor may not be important at all, given the changed times and perception of people. It is belatedly realised that the route to power is by addressing the common man. To be able to connect to the masses. To be able to forcefully rely on the power of spoken word. To be able to strike out the hollow roots of the ruling dispensation. To ask uncomfortable questions. To question the complicity with the lobbyists of various hues and the deep rot of the corporate business and financial interests in the ruling structure. To be able to muster enough lung power to take to the streets.

It is heartening to know that the BJP is belatedly realising the same. In the recent rally in Patna, BJP's Narendra Modi roared. Although it was a veiled attack on Congress and it's policies, it was clear that Modi is cut out for leading the country from 2014, assuming that the Congress runs it's full term or nothing untoward happens like a state of emergency. BJP is girding up it's loins for all the hard work, because it is the people power that would force the media to take cognisance of the developing situation and hopefully incite a debate.

Never before in recent history, has a leader been so popular who by sheer towering personality been able to deliver a public address extempore or connect with the populace coming on their own will to hear him out. BJP needs to chalk out a strong strategy to make forays in South, project Modi as the probable Prime Ministerial candidate and Nitin Gadkari in a managerial role. The "golden era" of L.K. Advani may well be over who like fumbling idiots messed up the whole show during 2004. The individual can never become bigger than the party; Modi realises this. And he was empathic in relaying a strong message to people that vote bank politics and minority pampering should be booted out in favour of a strong developmental based politics. Let me hasten to add. The revivalism of Hindutva where it regains public consciousness and becomes the focal point of the next 2014 elections. BJP as the representative of the Hindus needs to ensure the construction of Ram Mandir as a symbol of self assertion and sentiments for a vast majority of the people of this country. The must get back to their promises and fulfil them.

Coming back to the original theme of Banana republic. While this may be a remote possibility given the fact that Bhopal's skeletons have come tumbling out and Nuclear Liability Bill heavily loaded against it's own citizens, the millions stashed on secret Swiss accounts etc., we need a mass reawakening. A common point to rally around and bind as a nation; not on the basis of caste, creed or even religion but on the basis of Hinduism. On the basis of a rich glorious heritage that has been murdered by British in 300+ years of misrule. Of unshackling the slavery of mindset but rather become stake holders in the great and proud nation. Garv se Kaho hum Hindustani Hain.