During her day’s sojourn in India earlier this month on the invitation of the Indian Prime Minister Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, held inter-governmental consultations, quite unusually, at the cabinet level. Such cabinet-level discussions are held with very few countries. India is the first Asian country with which such discussions have been held. About half a dozen ministers accompanied her with the intentions of further expanding and intensifying economic cooperation between the two countries. Germany is the largest trading partner of India in the European Union.
Although, the discussions were slated to be held on cooperation in building up and modernising India's infrastructure, development of renewable and conventional energy, etc., the two countries signed pacts for cooperation in the areas of education, research and nuclear physics. India did not, apparently, seek cooperation in solar energy, currently a strong point of German industry. The Chancellor utilised the trip for canvassing for support for Christine Lagarde, the French Finance Minister, for appointment to the top IMF post and pushing for multi-million dollar deal on the sale of 126 Eurofighter Typhoon jets to India.
While she was in India a report appeared in the newspapers that Germany had decided to phase out all its 17 nuclear power plants by 2022. This happened to be in glaring contrast to the statement of India’s Prime Minister that by 2020 the country expected to raise the installed nuclear power capacity to 20000 MW (as against the current around 6000 MW) in an effort to “meet its emission targets”. India has been going hard at negotiating agreements with various countries for establishment of nuclear power plants after it signed the US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. However, post Fukushima many rich and industrialised countries, including those in the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), are having a re-think about nuclear power. Angela Merkel, herself a nuclear power enthusiast, after Fukushima has, apparently, heeded the very widely shared concern in Germany about the hazards of nuclear power and has gone by the recommendations of a panel she appointed to consider the question in depth. Presumably on India’s insistence, however, the German Chancellor agreed to help India in areas relating to nuclear safety. The Chancellor also said that her country would ensure that the safety standards of Indian nuclear power plants are of world class. She went on to add that Germany would help India achieve a “broad energy base” and help in development of renewable energy.
Obsessed with costly, unsustainable and hazardous nuclear power as the current Indian government is, it seems it failed to raise in its talks with the Germans the matter of providing assistance in solar energy. During Merkel’s earlier visit in 2007 a series of agreements were signed which included, among others, enlarging the ties in environmental technology. Somehow, India has failed to tap the German expertise in alternative energy, especially solar energy. Barring seminars and presentations made by German experts and entrepreneurs no headway has been made in this direction. I recall having read a report of a visit by representatives of German solar technology companies to Kolkata in 2010 as part of Renewable Energy Export Initiative initiated by the German Ministry of Economics and Technology and jointly executed by the Berlin-based Renewables Academy and the Indo-German Chamber of Commerce. The excitement generated by the delegation somehow dissipated with the initiative, seemingly, fizzling out.
One wonders as to why the Indian government has not been interested in making use of German expertise in solar energy. Quite incredibly, the mostly cloudy Germany today is a powerhouse of solar power. With an average of only 1500 hours of sunshine and around 60 sunny days in a year, the country has become a world leader in solar power. As the world’s sixth biggest emitter of carbon Germany is trying to slash its carbon emissions and wants renewable sources to supply a quarter of its energy needs by 2020. It has almost half of the world’s solar installations and it has gone ahead of everyone in production of photovoltaic cells. A law adopted in 2000 requires the country's huge power utility companies to subsidize the solar start-ups by buying their electricity at marked-up rates that makes it easy for the newcomers to turn a profit. Their green power enters the grid for sale to consumers. The law was part of a broader measure adopted by the German government to boost production of energy from renewable sources.
Germany seems to have embraced solar technology not just for its environmental benefits. German firms that manufacture photovoltaic (PV) panels and other components have prospered under the new Renewable Energy Act and have spectacularly boosted generation not only of solar power but also of employment. The German solar PV industry installed 7,400 MW from nearly one-quarter million individual systems in 2010, and there is now 16,500 MW of solar PV capacity on line in Germany. Solar PV provided 12 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2010 - about 2% of total electricity. The country’s solar thermal industry, however, has not been doing so well because of the recent economic slump. Although in 2009 a demonstration solar thermal tower went online near Cologne, yet this industry has had to lay off people. The photovoltaic industry, however, has been doing exceedingly well and has around 40000 employees. The country’s thriving solar technology industry has been looking for markets in the US, China, India and Pakistan.
India has vast solar power potential, far more than that of generally overcast Germany. With about 300 sunny days (as against 60 of Germany) and about 3000 sunshine hours per year even despite three monsoon months (as against 1500 in Germany) India can produce, estimates indicate, solar (photovoltaic) power enough to outstrip the domestic electricity demand in 2015 by as much as a thousand times, even if the efficiency of PV modules is taken as mere 10%, though currently their general efficiency is almost twice as much.
True, producing solar (photovoltaic) power is, presently, a costly proposition but with time, R&D and assisted proliferation the costs will surely come down. Initially, like in Germany, the government may have to subsidise solar power to make it affordable. Importantly, it will be energy with zero emission and will help set at rest the Prime Minister’s unease about meeting India’s, as of now, self-imposed emission targets.
In any case, nuclear power, too, is not cheap, with its high capital cost and costs on measures for several safeguards including those relating to environment and security as also high costs on radio-active waste disposal. Reports have indicated that the nuclear power lobby in India has consistently lied and understated costs to make nuclear power look economically viable and for making it attractive for those in power. Lately, even some of the European countries have been facing delay and consequential cost overruns in installation of nuclear power plants. Notably, as far back as in 2003 Belgium decided to phase out its seven reactors supplying 60% of its energy needs after 40 years of use as the energy produced by them was far too expensive. Besides, the perennial safety concerns kept nagging the administration. Post Fukushima, however, tables have been turned on nuclear energy in most parts of the world, including the industrialised OECD countries and China. However, India seems to be the only country which refuses to see the hazards of nuclear power despite its vulnerability of its nuclear installations.
Having articulated the ambition of generating 20 GW solar power (against current measly 10 MW) by 2020 and having progressively established a special relationship with Germany, it would be worth India’s while to seriously take the standing German offer of assistance in renewable energy. The synergy between German expertise in solar power and sunny India needs to be exploited for the mutual benefit of both.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Nuclear power causes unrest in India's Alphonso land
Grown mainly in the narrow strip of land between the Western Ghats and the Arabian Sea in the scenic Konkan region of India, the Alphonso mangoes are considered king among the several varieties that flood the market during the mango season. Known for their delectable flavour, richness of texture and sweetness they are coveted all over the world. In 2007, the US traded off the restrictions for their import against export of Harley Davidsons to the burgeoning Indian market. It is this Alphonso land that is today in a state of war.
The locals are up and against the proposal of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) to set up the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park (JNPP) on the Madban plateau (which is next to the ancient port of Jaitapur) in the Rajapur sub-division of Ratnagiri District – the home of the Alphonso. With six reactors, each capable of producing 1650 MW, the Park is billed to be one of the largest in the world. When commissioned, it is expected to produce 9900 MW of electricity. The NPCIL has signed an agreement with the French company AREVA for establishing the Park which will initially have two 1650 MW units.
The NPCIL’s Environment Impact Assessment reports described Madban as barren. On the contrary, the plateau has green forests along the hill slopes. The area’s thick mangroves along the creek are rich in marine life. They, together, form an integrated and unique ecosystem, supporting wide variety of flora and fauna.
Protests have been simmering for a long time against the proposal. Erroneous portrayal of the terrain also complicated matters. The farmers who not only farm rice but also grow the Alphonso and cashews in this fertile tract have been against parting with their lands for the nuclear power project. The fishermen who have a sizable catch of mackerel, pomfret, prawns and oysters also find their livelihood threatened.
The matters came to a head a few weeks ago when a fisherman lost his life in a demonstration that attacked a local police station. Reports indicate that the extreme Right Wing Shiva Sena got muscled into the melee to get political mileage out of the protests. Things have become more difficult for the protesters as the entire issue is now politicised. The Sena’s unwelcome participation has stiffened the attitude of the ruling Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government at the Centre. No wonder, the sensible Environment Minister, who had earlier put the Jaitapur proposal on the ice until safety and livelihood concerns were addressed, has had to relent, as pausing the project would not be politically sound.
The Congress-ruled state government has “taken up cudgels against the imported (read Shiva Sena) protesters.” It’s a pity that such a grave matter which could be of serious concern, in the event of an accident, to not only the country but also the region is being bulldozed through for considerations that are purely political. Nonetheless, thanks to “Fukushima”, the Centre is considering certain reforms among which are creation of an independent and autonomous nuclear regulatory authority, making public the reports of the reviews of nuclear reactors conducted after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents as also of the one that will be submitted by the panel constituted post “Fukushima” and conduct of safety audits by the Operational Safety Review Team of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
And, yet environmental and safety considerations of “Jaitapur” remain. Apart from the people’s livelihood, the environmental damage that may be caused to the unique ecosystem is likely to be colossal. The studies of Bombay natural History Society have testified to that. Besides, the National Oceanography Institute, Goa, has indicated that nuclear power plants at Jaitapur are not advisable as it falls in an earthquake-prone zone.
With our lackadaisical ways and the kind of shambolic disaster management system that we have, one wonders whether we would be able to deal effectively with a nuclear catastrophe. Even the French feel “when there is a major natural disaster, all the so-called safety measures (in nuclear power plants) fail in countries with greatest technical know-how.” Can we really claim to be better than such countries?
Worse, the government has opted for JNPP the European Pressure Reactors (EPRs) of the French company AREVA which are not yet functional anywhere in the world.
In Finland and in France, where these reactors are in the process of being installed, design and safety issues have led, apart from delays, to cost escalations to the extent of 50%. The EPR technology is still untested. Pushed by French President Sarkozy we have bargained for it. What is more, power generated by them, after taking into account costs of safeguards against accidents, terror attacks and environmental degradation, is likely to be unaffordable. Not included in these are the costs of eventual disposal of the nuclear wastes for which a suitable safe burial place in the bowels of the earth will have to be identified. The US is yet to find one in its vast territories.
A major national daily, lobbying for the project, said in its editorial the other day that India needs to enhance its “nuclear literacy”. The comment, apparently, was made in the context of opposition of the villagers and certain environmentalists to the proposed nuclear park in Jaitapur.Yes, we in this country are not really ‘nuclear literate’. People may know about nuclear bombs but, no, they do not know much about nuclear power.
However, by contrast, the Japanese people should be considered to have a high level of “literacy” in nuclear power – with about 30% of their power being generated (before Fukushima) by about 55 nuclear power plants. And, yet on a Sunday a few weeks ago, after Fukushima, there was a massive demonstration (by Japanese standards) in Tokyo against nuclear power plants. About 5000 demonstrators marched through Central Tokyo carrying placards that said “bye bye Genpatsu” (Goodbye nuclear power) demanding an end to nuclear power and a switch to alternative energy. The demonstrators included many young people and families who clearly appeared worried about the future of their children. Were they all, shall we say, “nuclear illiterates”?
Likewise, what would one call the Germans who get almost 25% of their energy requirements from 40 to 50 years old nuclear power plants? On 15th March 2011, after Fukushima, on account of a renewed general concern about nuclear power Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, once an active proponent of nuclear power, announced shut down of nuclear reactors that went on line before 1981. On 26th March in the largest anti-nuclear demonstration ever held in Germany 250,000 protested under the slogan “heed Fukushima – shut off all nuclear plants”.
France, second to the United States in nuclear power and meeting about 80% of its electricity demand from this source, has, of late, seen demonstrations and protests – even demands for a referendum to decide whether or not the country should stop producing nuclear power.Italy has also banned nuclear power. Italy has been nuclear-free since the Chernobyl accident in 1986 when it dismantled all its nuclear power plants. It was in the process of re-evaluating building of such plants when “Fukushima” happened. Switzerland, too, has given up plans to upgrade its aging nuclear power plants although the chances of an earthquake of 7.0 magnitude are reported to be once in 100,000 years. All but one of its nuclear power plants are capable of withstanding such an earthquake. Yet, the Swiss have refused to consider upgrading their plants. For them “security and wellbeing” of their people is an absolute priority. Are they all ignorant about nuclear power?
In India, however, things are different. Here we do not learn from all that happens around us. We seem to strike our own lonely path even if that happens to lead us to disaster. As some hack had once said we seem to go to the very edge before we retrace back our steps. That seems to be in our psyche. “Jaitapur” is no different! Even after “Fukushima” the environmentalists who oppose the proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park (JNPP) are branded “green fanatics” and “myopic” and the protesting farmers and fishermen who are likely to lose their livelihoods because of the Park are called “anti-national”.
Clearly, while the need indicated for enhanced “nuclear literacy” is unexceptionable there is no gainsaying the fact that, considering all factors, nuclear power is not for us, as indeed it doesn’t seem to be so for others – even in the First World. We, along with the rest of the world, need to look for alternative cheaper, greener and less hazardous sources of energy.
The locals are up and against the proposal of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) to set up the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park (JNPP) on the Madban plateau (which is next to the ancient port of Jaitapur) in the Rajapur sub-division of Ratnagiri District – the home of the Alphonso. With six reactors, each capable of producing 1650 MW, the Park is billed to be one of the largest in the world. When commissioned, it is expected to produce 9900 MW of electricity. The NPCIL has signed an agreement with the French company AREVA for establishing the Park which will initially have two 1650 MW units.
The NPCIL’s Environment Impact Assessment reports described Madban as barren. On the contrary, the plateau has green forests along the hill slopes. The area’s thick mangroves along the creek are rich in marine life. They, together, form an integrated and unique ecosystem, supporting wide variety of flora and fauna.
Protests have been simmering for a long time against the proposal. Erroneous portrayal of the terrain also complicated matters. The farmers who not only farm rice but also grow the Alphonso and cashews in this fertile tract have been against parting with their lands for the nuclear power project. The fishermen who have a sizable catch of mackerel, pomfret, prawns and oysters also find their livelihood threatened.
The matters came to a head a few weeks ago when a fisherman lost his life in a demonstration that attacked a local police station. Reports indicate that the extreme Right Wing Shiva Sena got muscled into the melee to get political mileage out of the protests. Things have become more difficult for the protesters as the entire issue is now politicised. The Sena’s unwelcome participation has stiffened the attitude of the ruling Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government at the Centre. No wonder, the sensible Environment Minister, who had earlier put the Jaitapur proposal on the ice until safety and livelihood concerns were addressed, has had to relent, as pausing the project would not be politically sound.
The Congress-ruled state government has “taken up cudgels against the imported (read Shiva Sena) protesters.” It’s a pity that such a grave matter which could be of serious concern, in the event of an accident, to not only the country but also the region is being bulldozed through for considerations that are purely political. Nonetheless, thanks to “Fukushima”, the Centre is considering certain reforms among which are creation of an independent and autonomous nuclear regulatory authority, making public the reports of the reviews of nuclear reactors conducted after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents as also of the one that will be submitted by the panel constituted post “Fukushima” and conduct of safety audits by the Operational Safety Review Team of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
And, yet environmental and safety considerations of “Jaitapur” remain. Apart from the people’s livelihood, the environmental damage that may be caused to the unique ecosystem is likely to be colossal. The studies of Bombay natural History Society have testified to that. Besides, the National Oceanography Institute, Goa, has indicated that nuclear power plants at Jaitapur are not advisable as it falls in an earthquake-prone zone.
With our lackadaisical ways and the kind of shambolic disaster management system that we have, one wonders whether we would be able to deal effectively with a nuclear catastrophe. Even the French feel “when there is a major natural disaster, all the so-called safety measures (in nuclear power plants) fail in countries with greatest technical know-how.” Can we really claim to be better than such countries?
Worse, the government has opted for JNPP the European Pressure Reactors (EPRs) of the French company AREVA which are not yet functional anywhere in the world.
In Finland and in France, where these reactors are in the process of being installed, design and safety issues have led, apart from delays, to cost escalations to the extent of 50%. The EPR technology is still untested. Pushed by French President Sarkozy we have bargained for it. What is more, power generated by them, after taking into account costs of safeguards against accidents, terror attacks and environmental degradation, is likely to be unaffordable. Not included in these are the costs of eventual disposal of the nuclear wastes for which a suitable safe burial place in the bowels of the earth will have to be identified. The US is yet to find one in its vast territories.
A major national daily, lobbying for the project, said in its editorial the other day that India needs to enhance its “nuclear literacy”. The comment, apparently, was made in the context of opposition of the villagers and certain environmentalists to the proposed nuclear park in Jaitapur.Yes, we in this country are not really ‘nuclear literate’. People may know about nuclear bombs but, no, they do not know much about nuclear power.
However, by contrast, the Japanese people should be considered to have a high level of “literacy” in nuclear power – with about 30% of their power being generated (before Fukushima) by about 55 nuclear power plants. And, yet on a Sunday a few weeks ago, after Fukushima, there was a massive demonstration (by Japanese standards) in Tokyo against nuclear power plants. About 5000 demonstrators marched through Central Tokyo carrying placards that said “bye bye Genpatsu” (Goodbye nuclear power) demanding an end to nuclear power and a switch to alternative energy. The demonstrators included many young people and families who clearly appeared worried about the future of their children. Were they all, shall we say, “nuclear illiterates”?
Likewise, what would one call the Germans who get almost 25% of their energy requirements from 40 to 50 years old nuclear power plants? On 15th March 2011, after Fukushima, on account of a renewed general concern about nuclear power Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, once an active proponent of nuclear power, announced shut down of nuclear reactors that went on line before 1981. On 26th March in the largest anti-nuclear demonstration ever held in Germany 250,000 protested under the slogan “heed Fukushima – shut off all nuclear plants”.
France, second to the United States in nuclear power and meeting about 80% of its electricity demand from this source, has, of late, seen demonstrations and protests – even demands for a referendum to decide whether or not the country should stop producing nuclear power.Italy has also banned nuclear power. Italy has been nuclear-free since the Chernobyl accident in 1986 when it dismantled all its nuclear power plants. It was in the process of re-evaluating building of such plants when “Fukushima” happened. Switzerland, too, has given up plans to upgrade its aging nuclear power plants although the chances of an earthquake of 7.0 magnitude are reported to be once in 100,000 years. All but one of its nuclear power plants are capable of withstanding such an earthquake. Yet, the Swiss have refused to consider upgrading their plants. For them “security and wellbeing” of their people is an absolute priority. Are they all ignorant about nuclear power?
In India, however, things are different. Here we do not learn from all that happens around us. We seem to strike our own lonely path even if that happens to lead us to disaster. As some hack had once said we seem to go to the very edge before we retrace back our steps. That seems to be in our psyche. “Jaitapur” is no different! Even after “Fukushima” the environmentalists who oppose the proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park (JNPP) are branded “green fanatics” and “myopic” and the protesting farmers and fishermen who are likely to lose their livelihoods because of the Park are called “anti-national”.
Clearly, while the need indicated for enhanced “nuclear literacy” is unexceptionable there is no gainsaying the fact that, considering all factors, nuclear power is not for us, as indeed it doesn’t seem to be so for others – even in the First World. We, along with the rest of the world, need to look for alternative cheaper, greener and less hazardous sources of energy.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Bhopal gas disaster - government makes amends
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the other day admitted in the Supreme Court that it made a "mistake" in approaching the latter late for restoring stringent charges in the Bhopal gas tragedy case against the accused who escaped with lighter punishments. When questioned for the reasons for the delay, the agency, parrying the query, said that it was not an "ordinary case" in which delay in filing the curative petition should come in the way of providing justice to the victims of the disaster.
The agency has filed a curative petition to, evidently, set right the injustice meted out by the apex court in September 1996 when a two-judge bench, presided over by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) AM Ahmedi, diluted the charges against the accused from that of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” punishable with 10 years’ imprisonment to “causing death due to negligence” that fetches a punishment of mere two years in prison. The contention of the then CJI was that he could not support such a charge (that of culpable homicide) unless it was indicated, prima facie, that the plant was run on that fateful night by the accused with the knowledge that it was likely to cause deaths of human beings. The CBI, in its wisdom, did not approach the court for a review.
However, it has had to file a curative petition now because of the public outburst after the June 7, 2010 verdict of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bhopal, that handed out 2 years’ imprisonment with some fines for the accused officials of the Union Carbide India, Ltd (UCIL) under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code that deal with death(s) caused by criminal negligence. The ultra-mild verdict caused outrage amongst the victims and their relatives. The verdict had come 26 years after filing of the case relating to the leak of the lethal methyl isocynate from the Bhopal-based UCIL factory in the early hours of 3rd December 1984. Officially, 15000 men, women and children were killed, the unofficial count being in the region of 25000 to 30000. Thousands of others died later or were maimed for life and are still suffering from the after-effects.
Making assertions before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court the Attorney General (AG) Gulam Vahanvati justified the filing of the curative petition as the UCIL was entirely responsible for the world’s worst industrial disaster. The Corporation attracted the total responsibility as it operated the pesticide plant with “structural and operational defects” and flouted “all other” safety norms. The AG added, “The UCIL was sitting on a powder keg and as such the disaster was waiting to happen” He further said that the plant had been “limping” along since 1981 – good three years before the fatal accident – due to the illegal omissions and commissions on the part of the management that resulted in a “dismal state of affairs”. The accident was the cumulative result of a series of criminal violations by the factory which, he contended, was not due to negligence as determined by the Supreme Court in 1996. “Once this knowledge was attributed to the respondent/accused persons, the fact that no action was taken to set right and cure the defects in the plant would by itself attract the provisions” of the relevant section of the IPC that treats such offences as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He felt that the Supreme Court had erred in 1996 in giving a verdict that was “oppressive to judicial conscience”. He added that it has caused manifest “irremediable injustices”. The two-year jail-term capable of being imposed under the section of IPC applied by the court to the culprits was “grossly disproportionate” to the “horrendous crime” that was committed by them.
The assertions of the AG must have surprised and shocked many who are acquainted with the developments of the entire case against the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and its Indian subsidiary the UCIL. Although privy to all the facts that are now being placed before the apex court, these were never mustered to book the culprits earlier when apex court diluted the charges. Perhaps, CBI’s hands were tied owing to the directions given by the then ruling party. In fact, all these years there had been a well-considered attempt by the governments at the Centre and the state of Madhya Pradesh (MP), both ruled by the Congress at the time of the tragedy and for many years thereafter, to protect the interests of the UCC and its Indian subsidiary, UCIL.
A recapitulation, in brief, of the basic facts of the case should prove to be helpful for a better appreciation of what has been said above. That the plant was of obsolete design was known to the Centre’s Department of Industrial Development where the proposal of the UCC remained on ice for around five years until, suddenly during the Emergency, it was fished out of cold storage and approved reasons that were dubious. The then Chief Minister (CM) of MP was grateful to the UCC that it agreed to set up the factory in Bhopal. Soon thereafter, in the early 1980s, a local reputed journalist cried hoarse about the very facts that the AG has pleaded now – that the plant at Bhopal was sitting on a powder keg. But the then CM, the late Arjun Singh, would not lend his ear to them – beholden as he was to the UCIL. After the tragedy, not only did he try to palm off a depressed figure of casualties, he also had Warren Anderson, CEO of the UCC, most inappropriately smuggled out of Bhopal after his arrest. Later, the Centre saw to it that he was safely flown back home. Anderson was personally responsible for the tragedy as the defects and deficiencies of the plant had been communicated to him by the local plant authorities from time to time before the gas-leak.
At Delhi the Centre played its own games to the detriment of the victims and survivors of the tragedy. Not only did it agree to a paltry sum of $470 million as compensation negotiated in camera by the then Chief Justice of India, RS Pathak, with the representatives of the UCC, (another curative petition for which has now been filed) the government had a law enacted that took away the rights of the victims to sue the UCC for compensation or to file criminal cases against it and its officials. Further, the government has so far steadfastly refused to pursue the ongoing Bhopal Gas Victim’s case in the US even though it knows full well that its participation will strengthen it and that any order of an Indian court will not be enforceable in the US – regardless of a positive outcome of its fresh curative petition.
All this apart, the MP government, under the Congress rule, stopped remediation by Eveready, the successor of UCIL, of the contamination of the factory-site, which the UCIL had been contaminating from even before the gas-leak tragedy. Having done that, the government accepted the site back from the Corporation with all its hazardous wastes without insisting on its return in the condition it was handed over to it in accordance with the provisions of the lease deed. A few thousand crores may now have to be spent for the removal and disposal of the hazardous chemicals and other contaminants from the site.
Clearly, both, the Central and the state governments, after such a grievous tragedy, short-changed the country and its people, as it now seems, for the interests of the Congress party that happened to be running both the governments. They took decisions that, from all evidences, were in favour of the UCC, apparently, for reasons of the payments the UCC made to the Congress Party, as very plausibly alleged by the eminent lawyer, Ram Jethmalani. His allegations have not been denied so far.
The public outrage after the June 2010 judgement left the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government with no alternative but to take the initiatives it has taken now. Nothing may, however, come off them as the actions that are being taken now are excessively delayed. The government is, apparently, going through the motions only to assuage the feelings of the victims of the disaster.
The agency has filed a curative petition to, evidently, set right the injustice meted out by the apex court in September 1996 when a two-judge bench, presided over by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) AM Ahmedi, diluted the charges against the accused from that of “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” punishable with 10 years’ imprisonment to “causing death due to negligence” that fetches a punishment of mere two years in prison. The contention of the then CJI was that he could not support such a charge (that of culpable homicide) unless it was indicated, prima facie, that the plant was run on that fateful night by the accused with the knowledge that it was likely to cause deaths of human beings. The CBI, in its wisdom, did not approach the court for a review.
However, it has had to file a curative petition now because of the public outburst after the June 7, 2010 verdict of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bhopal, that handed out 2 years’ imprisonment with some fines for the accused officials of the Union Carbide India, Ltd (UCIL) under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code that deal with death(s) caused by criminal negligence. The ultra-mild verdict caused outrage amongst the victims and their relatives. The verdict had come 26 years after filing of the case relating to the leak of the lethal methyl isocynate from the Bhopal-based UCIL factory in the early hours of 3rd December 1984. Officially, 15000 men, women and children were killed, the unofficial count being in the region of 25000 to 30000. Thousands of others died later or were maimed for life and are still suffering from the after-effects.
Making assertions before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court the Attorney General (AG) Gulam Vahanvati justified the filing of the curative petition as the UCIL was entirely responsible for the world’s worst industrial disaster. The Corporation attracted the total responsibility as it operated the pesticide plant with “structural and operational defects” and flouted “all other” safety norms. The AG added, “The UCIL was sitting on a powder keg and as such the disaster was waiting to happen” He further said that the plant had been “limping” along since 1981 – good three years before the fatal accident – due to the illegal omissions and commissions on the part of the management that resulted in a “dismal state of affairs”. The accident was the cumulative result of a series of criminal violations by the factory which, he contended, was not due to negligence as determined by the Supreme Court in 1996. “Once this knowledge was attributed to the respondent/accused persons, the fact that no action was taken to set right and cure the defects in the plant would by itself attract the provisions” of the relevant section of the IPC that treats such offences as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He felt that the Supreme Court had erred in 1996 in giving a verdict that was “oppressive to judicial conscience”. He added that it has caused manifest “irremediable injustices”. The two-year jail-term capable of being imposed under the section of IPC applied by the court to the culprits was “grossly disproportionate” to the “horrendous crime” that was committed by them.
The assertions of the AG must have surprised and shocked many who are acquainted with the developments of the entire case against the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and its Indian subsidiary the UCIL. Although privy to all the facts that are now being placed before the apex court, these were never mustered to book the culprits earlier when apex court diluted the charges. Perhaps, CBI’s hands were tied owing to the directions given by the then ruling party. In fact, all these years there had been a well-considered attempt by the governments at the Centre and the state of Madhya Pradesh (MP), both ruled by the Congress at the time of the tragedy and for many years thereafter, to protect the interests of the UCC and its Indian subsidiary, UCIL.
A recapitulation, in brief, of the basic facts of the case should prove to be helpful for a better appreciation of what has been said above. That the plant was of obsolete design was known to the Centre’s Department of Industrial Development where the proposal of the UCC remained on ice for around five years until, suddenly during the Emergency, it was fished out of cold storage and approved reasons that were dubious. The then Chief Minister (CM) of MP was grateful to the UCC that it agreed to set up the factory in Bhopal. Soon thereafter, in the early 1980s, a local reputed journalist cried hoarse about the very facts that the AG has pleaded now – that the plant at Bhopal was sitting on a powder keg. But the then CM, the late Arjun Singh, would not lend his ear to them – beholden as he was to the UCIL. After the tragedy, not only did he try to palm off a depressed figure of casualties, he also had Warren Anderson, CEO of the UCC, most inappropriately smuggled out of Bhopal after his arrest. Later, the Centre saw to it that he was safely flown back home. Anderson was personally responsible for the tragedy as the defects and deficiencies of the plant had been communicated to him by the local plant authorities from time to time before the gas-leak.
At Delhi the Centre played its own games to the detriment of the victims and survivors of the tragedy. Not only did it agree to a paltry sum of $470 million as compensation negotiated in camera by the then Chief Justice of India, RS Pathak, with the representatives of the UCC, (another curative petition for which has now been filed) the government had a law enacted that took away the rights of the victims to sue the UCC for compensation or to file criminal cases against it and its officials. Further, the government has so far steadfastly refused to pursue the ongoing Bhopal Gas Victim’s case in the US even though it knows full well that its participation will strengthen it and that any order of an Indian court will not be enforceable in the US – regardless of a positive outcome of its fresh curative petition.
All this apart, the MP government, under the Congress rule, stopped remediation by Eveready, the successor of UCIL, of the contamination of the factory-site, which the UCIL had been contaminating from even before the gas-leak tragedy. Having done that, the government accepted the site back from the Corporation with all its hazardous wastes without insisting on its return in the condition it was handed over to it in accordance with the provisions of the lease deed. A few thousand crores may now have to be spent for the removal and disposal of the hazardous chemicals and other contaminants from the site.
Clearly, both, the Central and the state governments, after such a grievous tragedy, short-changed the country and its people, as it now seems, for the interests of the Congress party that happened to be running both the governments. They took decisions that, from all evidences, were in favour of the UCC, apparently, for reasons of the payments the UCC made to the Congress Party, as very plausibly alleged by the eminent lawyer, Ram Jethmalani. His allegations have not been denied so far.
The public outrage after the June 2010 judgement left the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government with no alternative but to take the initiatives it has taken now. Nothing may, however, come off them as the actions that are being taken now are excessively delayed. The government is, apparently, going through the motions only to assuage the feelings of the victims of the disaster.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Cricket on overdrive
It has almost been like carpet bombing – the media hype during the recent International Cricket Council (ICC) Cricket World Cup of one-day internationals that was recently played out in the Indian sub-continent. The “bombing” was intensified just before the India-Pakistan semi-final played at Mohali, near Chandigarh.
The term “carpet bombing” has been described by Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, as large-scale bombing of targets covering wide areas usually by dropping many unguided bombs. The tactic aims for complete destruction of a target region, either to destroy personnel and material, or as a means of demoralizing the enemy. In somewhat similar fashion, the print and electronic media “bombed” the reader/viewer with everything they had to soften, if not demolish, his faculty of reason. The print media had sports and other pages dedicated to the World Cup; the TV news channels mounted programmes of discussions, talk-shows, teleconferences and what have you. With interesting names like “Power Play”, “Inside Story”, “Fourth Umpire”, “Kings of Cricket” etc. the programmes – much like unguided bombs – would obliterate regular news-and-views schedules and bombard viewers with opinions, anecdotes, cricketing trivia and suchlike. What’s more, there would be repeat telecasts in the mornings or late in the night for those who, by an odd chance, might have missed them. To add a touch of glamour, they had even inducted two very attractive ladies, one an actor and a cricket-lover and the other a former captain of the Indian women’s cricket team. The idea of the promoters of the channels seems to have been to force-feed the TV audiences, much like the famed Peking ducks or the Kobe cows, with the stuff that they had taken great pains to muster spending millions, maybe billions of rupees and dollars. While one could skip the sports pages of a daily, the visual media is another kettle of fish. It has that unmistakable tendency to arrest the viewers’ attention.
Not many years ago, only the channels that would telecast a match would assemble a few experts and put on the air the discussions in real time prompted by an anchor before the commencement of play, during the intervals or, as they say in cricket lingo, breaks and at the end of the game or, in case of a test match, at the end of the day’s play. It is no longer so. While the channels that buy out the rights to telecast the matches or the tournament continue with their rigmarole, others attracted by the target rating points (TRP), especially the English and vernacular languages news channels, too, have climbed on to the bandwagon. During the recent World Cup, therefore, at any hour of the day or night one or the other or several channels would be inflicting cricket on the unwary surfer.
While the vernacular language channels had to make do with former local heroes, a large number of retired national and international cricketers had been assembled along with numerous national and international commentators from practically every cricketing country. They would expatiate ad nauseam on the finer points of the games that had already been played or strengths or weaknesses of various players as also of the several teams in the fray with their prospects of advancing in the tournament. As hiring of these former foreign cricketing greats meant enormous outflow of cash they had to be kept busy and, hence, they would be put live on the air most of the time, sometimes even on prime time. News was pushed out into the background. During the World Cup the news channels all but forgot about Fukushima and the ongoing war in Libya. Nothing seemed to be news-worthy other than what transpired on the cricket ground. Fed up with this overdose, one felt like kicking the TV.
It’s not that I am not a cricket buff. In my younger days I was very much so. Not only would I play cricket in school and college, I would also, apart from reading books on cricket, avidly listen to the running commentary of matches over the radio. We would tune in to Radio Australia early in the morning to catch the Australia-England “Ashes” series or listen to the BBC till late into the night for the matches played in England with the edifying comments in ‘poetic’ prose by the legendary John Arlott. I still recall the embarrassing Test of 1952 at Headingley, Leeds where India were four wickets down for no-score. The Indian prestige was somewhat redeemed when Vinoo Mankad, later in the same series, scored 72 in the first innings, took 5 English wickets and the scored 184 in the second innings of the Test at the Lords Cricket Ground. The spectators gave him a standing ovation.
All India Radio would broadcast running commentaries when matches were played in India. I remember with nostalgia the delightful commentating of Dev Raj Puri who had mastered the art of giving ball-to-ball commentary, effectively conveying the atmosphere on the ground. Sometime later, Vijay Merchant, a retired cricketer, also started commentating with his thick Gujarati accent. Even “Vizzy”, the Maharaj Kumar of Vizianagaram, a cricket busybody, had insinuated himself into the commentary box. For him what was happening on the ground was of little importance. He would expound more on the exploits of Polly Umrigar in the Queens’ Park Oval, Trinidad or Sabina Park in Kingston, Jamaica. Most interesting, however, used to be the chats of AFS Talyarkhan with commentators during the tea-break around the early 1950s. He was reputed to be a marathon commentator earlier and used to cover entire five-day Test matches by himself. Later, he used to write a witty column on cricket with the title “Do you get me Steve?” I still remember a devastating one of his directed at Vijay Merchant on the much-publicised incident of a girl kissing Abbas Ali Baig after he scored a hundred at Bombay in a Test. “Vijay Merchant was wondering on the air”, he wrote, “where all the girls were when he was scoring his hundreds. Fast asleep Vijay, they were too tired of waiting”, followed by the inevitable “Do you get me Steve?” An opening batsman, old-timers would remember, Merchant, though technically perfect, was undoubtedly a plodder.
Cricket was earlier quintessentially a sport indulged in by the upper and middle classes. Patronised by the maharajas and nawabs, it used to be played mostly by the feudals and their progeny. Even the commentaries over the radio were listened to by them and the middle classes who possessed the radio-receivers – a rarity in those days. The common man as also the deprived masses could never afford it and, hence, never showed any interest in the game. A change came over after transistorisation of the radio. It became cheap, affordable and portable. Running commentaries in Hindi extended the reach of cricket making it more fathomable to the non-English knowing crowd. The game received a big boost in popularity when India won the third edition of the Cricket World Cup in 1983. Advancement in technology gave it a further boost with proliferation of TV sets and cable and satellite channels carrying live images of matches into the living rooms. Today, cricket is watched on TV by millions of Indians in high-end houses as also in rural and urban shanties, even if the power in the latter happens to be purloined. A once-aristocratic game has been taken by TV to the plebeians and they have taken to it, virtually, like the duck takes to water.
The viewership in multi-millions generates billions of dollars in advertisement revenues. It has made the country’s apex cricketing body, the Board of Control for Cricket in India, cash-rich, giving it an enormous clout in international cricket. India may not be a world economic power yet, but it surely is a world cricketing power. And, before anybody could get wise about it, cricket’s centre of gravity shifted from England to India. No wonder, the ICC World Cup was played out recently in the sub-continent for the second time and two sub-continental teams fought out for the honours with India winning the Cup. The Central and some state governments gave a holiday to the cricket-crazy staff to cheer the home team even if they did so from the comfort of their homes. No work would have been done in offices even otherwise.
With the kind of money cricket now generates things certainly had to change. It has become a year-round circus and is no longer a sport for the three or four winter months as of yore. With everyone raking in the moolah none seems to resent it. There is, therefore, going to be no respite from cricket. Even as dust is yet to settle down after the World Cup, the Indian Premier League’s Twenty-Twenty (T-20) tournament has commenced and cricket will again monopolise the TV channels for the next fifty days.
The term “carpet bombing” has been described by Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, as large-scale bombing of targets covering wide areas usually by dropping many unguided bombs. The tactic aims for complete destruction of a target region, either to destroy personnel and material, or as a means of demoralizing the enemy. In somewhat similar fashion, the print and electronic media “bombed” the reader/viewer with everything they had to soften, if not demolish, his faculty of reason. The print media had sports and other pages dedicated to the World Cup; the TV news channels mounted programmes of discussions, talk-shows, teleconferences and what have you. With interesting names like “Power Play”, “Inside Story”, “Fourth Umpire”, “Kings of Cricket” etc. the programmes – much like unguided bombs – would obliterate regular news-and-views schedules and bombard viewers with opinions, anecdotes, cricketing trivia and suchlike. What’s more, there would be repeat telecasts in the mornings or late in the night for those who, by an odd chance, might have missed them. To add a touch of glamour, they had even inducted two very attractive ladies, one an actor and a cricket-lover and the other a former captain of the Indian women’s cricket team. The idea of the promoters of the channels seems to have been to force-feed the TV audiences, much like the famed Peking ducks or the Kobe cows, with the stuff that they had taken great pains to muster spending millions, maybe billions of rupees and dollars. While one could skip the sports pages of a daily, the visual media is another kettle of fish. It has that unmistakable tendency to arrest the viewers’ attention.
Not many years ago, only the channels that would telecast a match would assemble a few experts and put on the air the discussions in real time prompted by an anchor before the commencement of play, during the intervals or, as they say in cricket lingo, breaks and at the end of the game or, in case of a test match, at the end of the day’s play. It is no longer so. While the channels that buy out the rights to telecast the matches or the tournament continue with their rigmarole, others attracted by the target rating points (TRP), especially the English and vernacular languages news channels, too, have climbed on to the bandwagon. During the recent World Cup, therefore, at any hour of the day or night one or the other or several channels would be inflicting cricket on the unwary surfer.
While the vernacular language channels had to make do with former local heroes, a large number of retired national and international cricketers had been assembled along with numerous national and international commentators from practically every cricketing country. They would expatiate ad nauseam on the finer points of the games that had already been played or strengths or weaknesses of various players as also of the several teams in the fray with their prospects of advancing in the tournament. As hiring of these former foreign cricketing greats meant enormous outflow of cash they had to be kept busy and, hence, they would be put live on the air most of the time, sometimes even on prime time. News was pushed out into the background. During the World Cup the news channels all but forgot about Fukushima and the ongoing war in Libya. Nothing seemed to be news-worthy other than what transpired on the cricket ground. Fed up with this overdose, one felt like kicking the TV.
It’s not that I am not a cricket buff. In my younger days I was very much so. Not only would I play cricket in school and college, I would also, apart from reading books on cricket, avidly listen to the running commentary of matches over the radio. We would tune in to Radio Australia early in the morning to catch the Australia-England “Ashes” series or listen to the BBC till late into the night for the matches played in England with the edifying comments in ‘poetic’ prose by the legendary John Arlott. I still recall the embarrassing Test of 1952 at Headingley, Leeds where India were four wickets down for no-score. The Indian prestige was somewhat redeemed when Vinoo Mankad, later in the same series, scored 72 in the first innings, took 5 English wickets and the scored 184 in the second innings of the Test at the Lords Cricket Ground. The spectators gave him a standing ovation.
All India Radio would broadcast running commentaries when matches were played in India. I remember with nostalgia the delightful commentating of Dev Raj Puri who had mastered the art of giving ball-to-ball commentary, effectively conveying the atmosphere on the ground. Sometime later, Vijay Merchant, a retired cricketer, also started commentating with his thick Gujarati accent. Even “Vizzy”, the Maharaj Kumar of Vizianagaram, a cricket busybody, had insinuated himself into the commentary box. For him what was happening on the ground was of little importance. He would expound more on the exploits of Polly Umrigar in the Queens’ Park Oval, Trinidad or Sabina Park in Kingston, Jamaica. Most interesting, however, used to be the chats of AFS Talyarkhan with commentators during the tea-break around the early 1950s. He was reputed to be a marathon commentator earlier and used to cover entire five-day Test matches by himself. Later, he used to write a witty column on cricket with the title “Do you get me Steve?” I still remember a devastating one of his directed at Vijay Merchant on the much-publicised incident of a girl kissing Abbas Ali Baig after he scored a hundred at Bombay in a Test. “Vijay Merchant was wondering on the air”, he wrote, “where all the girls were when he was scoring his hundreds. Fast asleep Vijay, they were too tired of waiting”, followed by the inevitable “Do you get me Steve?” An opening batsman, old-timers would remember, Merchant, though technically perfect, was undoubtedly a plodder.
Cricket was earlier quintessentially a sport indulged in by the upper and middle classes. Patronised by the maharajas and nawabs, it used to be played mostly by the feudals and their progeny. Even the commentaries over the radio were listened to by them and the middle classes who possessed the radio-receivers – a rarity in those days. The common man as also the deprived masses could never afford it and, hence, never showed any interest in the game. A change came over after transistorisation of the radio. It became cheap, affordable and portable. Running commentaries in Hindi extended the reach of cricket making it more fathomable to the non-English knowing crowd. The game received a big boost in popularity when India won the third edition of the Cricket World Cup in 1983. Advancement in technology gave it a further boost with proliferation of TV sets and cable and satellite channels carrying live images of matches into the living rooms. Today, cricket is watched on TV by millions of Indians in high-end houses as also in rural and urban shanties, even if the power in the latter happens to be purloined. A once-aristocratic game has been taken by TV to the plebeians and they have taken to it, virtually, like the duck takes to water.
The viewership in multi-millions generates billions of dollars in advertisement revenues. It has made the country’s apex cricketing body, the Board of Control for Cricket in India, cash-rich, giving it an enormous clout in international cricket. India may not be a world economic power yet, but it surely is a world cricketing power. And, before anybody could get wise about it, cricket’s centre of gravity shifted from England to India. No wonder, the ICC World Cup was played out recently in the sub-continent for the second time and two sub-continental teams fought out for the honours with India winning the Cup. The Central and some state governments gave a holiday to the cricket-crazy staff to cheer the home team even if they did so from the comfort of their homes. No work would have been done in offices even otherwise.
With the kind of money cricket now generates things certainly had to change. It has become a year-round circus and is no longer a sport for the three or four winter months as of yore. With everyone raking in the moolah none seems to resent it. There is, therefore, going to be no respite from cricket. Even as dust is yet to settle down after the World Cup, the Indian Premier League’s Twenty-Twenty (T-20) tournament has commenced and cricket will again monopolise the TV channels for the next fifty days.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
"Cash for votes" - sensational WikiLeak disclosures
That voters in India are routinely bribed in cash or kind is a well-known phenomenon. In Tamilnadu according to WikiLeaks, it is commonplace, as indeed it is elsewhere in the country. Indians are also familiar with what is generally known as “horse trading” that involves in huge amounts of cash changing hands when, post-elections, political parties engage in government formation to find that majority in the “house” that elude them at the hustings. Likewise, Indians have been taking bribing of legislators for voting for a minority government in the state or national legislatures during trust-votes, by and large, in their stride.
Nevertheless, the expose’ by the highly respected newspaper “The Hindu” of the “cash for votes” cables sent from the US Embassy and procured from WikiLeaks, seemingly, set the cat among the pigeons. The cables talked of millions of rupees being paid to a certain political party at the time of the 2008 no-confidence motion moved against the Manmohan Singh government that lost its majority in the Lower House on withdrawal of support by the Left parties over the Indo-US Nuclear Deal.
The July 22 2008 no-confidence motion moved against United Progressive Alliance government by the Opposition was followed by tremendous amount of theatrics. Three Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs came rushing into the Lok Sabha, the Lower House, waving bundles of currency notes in front of the Speaker, alleging attempts by Samajwadi Party (SP), then a supporter of the government, to bribe them with a crore (ten million) of rupees each for voting for the government. The name of Amar Singh, then of the SP and a well-known political wheeler-dealer, was mentioned in this connection. The expose’ was result of a sting operation by CNN-IBN news channel, masterminded by one Sudhindra Kulkarni, a BJP ideologue.
The money was seized by the Speaker and, later, a committee of Lok Sabha was constituted to probe into the matter. Failing to arrive at a definite conclusion even though video tapes and other documents relating records of phone calls etc. were submitted to it by the news channel and the BJP, respectively, the Committee exonerated Amar Singh but labelled his aide, one Sanjeev Saxena, as a bribe-giver who was caught on camera bribing a BJP MP. Unable to probe further for reasons of rules and procedures, the Committee suggested further investigations into the matter. However, neither the matter was probed further nor the case registered at the instance of the Speaker with the local police pursued. The Manmohan Singh government survived the motion with the help of a few abstentions and support of a few BJP MPs who defied the party’s whip.
In the context of what happened in the Parliament in July 2008, contents of the leaked cable are perfectly credible. It is quite likely that as a measure of abundant caution the Congress Party attempted to muster as many votes as possible in favour of the government. After all, the Prime Minister was deeply committed to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal and the government (and his party) had to take all possible measures to ensure its survival to push it through. Apart from using Amar Singh to bribe some BJP MPs, the Congress, apparently, pitched on the MPs of Rashtriya Lok Dal, a regional political outfit of Uttar Pradesh (UP), more open to the lure of money. Headed by one Ajit Singh, a man of dubious reputation, the party has frequently figured in reports of its involvement in lending support for monetary considerations to shaky governments. Apparently, the US Embassy contact was told that the MPs of RLD had been paid a billion rupees each. Their reputation is such that even the Congressman, Nachiketa Kapur, who organised the payment, was not sure whether they would vote in favour of the government even after having been bribed. He, however, boasted that there was enough kept away in chests for further pay-offs, if necessary.
Yet another factor that makes the cable credible is the mention of Capt. Satish Sharma, an MP in Rajya Sabha, the Upper House, who also was met with by the US Embassy contact. Looks like, Capt. Sharma and Kapur were jointly in charge of the operation of bribing the RLD MPs. Once a close friend of the Late Rajiv Gandhi, he is now a close associate of Sonia Gandhi, widow of Rajiv Gandhi and the current Congress President. With a chequered political career and several brushes with the law, he, seemingly, has been involved in the dirty work of the Congress. He was also involved in 1993 in bribing the MPs of another regional political outfit, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), to save the minority Congress government of the Late Narsimha Rao in a trust-vote moved by the BJP. The investigations had revealed that various industrialists had paid Rs 13 crore (130 million) to Capt Satish Sharma, who arranged payments to the JMM MPs out of this amount. Narsimha Rao’s government did survive the trust vote.
Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, brazened out the WikiLeaks disclosures by an outright denial of the allegations of bribery and rejected the charge of the Opposition, which he said was based on “speculative, unverified and unverifiable'' communication, and told Parliament that none from the government or the Congress indulged in any unlawful act during that time. He went on to say that the government “cannot confirm the veracity, contents or even the existence of such communication.” At the then ongoing India Today Conclave he had said, “I have no knowledge of any such purchases and I am absolutely categorical, I have not authorised anyone to purchase any votes. I am not aware of any acts of purchase of votes…I am absolutely certain in asserting that I am not at all, I think, involved in any of these transactions”.
Nobody is buying what Dr. Singh has been saying in denial. Not only there was enough evidence gathered earlier, the US officials have since certified the accuracy and credibility of the cables now released by WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, Editor in-Chief of WikiLeaks, branded Dr. Singh’ statements of denial as “misleading”, a charge that is serious when made against a prime minister. Generally known for his clean image, Indian people are aghast at the way the Prime Minister, with his distinguished academic and bureaucratic background, staked his reputation and all that he had for winning a trust-vote to see a mere deal through. At a recent interview with the editors of Indian TV news channels he had said, that after his academic and bureaucratic stints, politics was a fresh field that was providing him a new learning experience. Apparently, he has been very quick in picking up the tricks of his current trade.
Apart from the image of Dr. Singh, the image of Congress has taken a severe beating. The grand old party, now more than a century and a quarter old, has, somewhere down in the post-independence years, lost its moral fibre and has acquired an insatiable lust for power. This very lust may see the end of it. Mahatma Gandhi happened to say in 1948 “...in the ungainly skirmish for power, it (Congress) will find one fine morning that it is no more.” That may well happen with the contemptible riff-raff that it now constitutes of, unless the party immediately sets about correcting its course.
Nevertheless, the expose’ by the highly respected newspaper “The Hindu” of the “cash for votes” cables sent from the US Embassy and procured from WikiLeaks, seemingly, set the cat among the pigeons. The cables talked of millions of rupees being paid to a certain political party at the time of the 2008 no-confidence motion moved against the Manmohan Singh government that lost its majority in the Lower House on withdrawal of support by the Left parties over the Indo-US Nuclear Deal.
The July 22 2008 no-confidence motion moved against United Progressive Alliance government by the Opposition was followed by tremendous amount of theatrics. Three Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs came rushing into the Lok Sabha, the Lower House, waving bundles of currency notes in front of the Speaker, alleging attempts by Samajwadi Party (SP), then a supporter of the government, to bribe them with a crore (ten million) of rupees each for voting for the government. The name of Amar Singh, then of the SP and a well-known political wheeler-dealer, was mentioned in this connection. The expose’ was result of a sting operation by CNN-IBN news channel, masterminded by one Sudhindra Kulkarni, a BJP ideologue.
The money was seized by the Speaker and, later, a committee of Lok Sabha was constituted to probe into the matter. Failing to arrive at a definite conclusion even though video tapes and other documents relating records of phone calls etc. were submitted to it by the news channel and the BJP, respectively, the Committee exonerated Amar Singh but labelled his aide, one Sanjeev Saxena, as a bribe-giver who was caught on camera bribing a BJP MP. Unable to probe further for reasons of rules and procedures, the Committee suggested further investigations into the matter. However, neither the matter was probed further nor the case registered at the instance of the Speaker with the local police pursued. The Manmohan Singh government survived the motion with the help of a few abstentions and support of a few BJP MPs who defied the party’s whip.
In the context of what happened in the Parliament in July 2008, contents of the leaked cable are perfectly credible. It is quite likely that as a measure of abundant caution the Congress Party attempted to muster as many votes as possible in favour of the government. After all, the Prime Minister was deeply committed to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal and the government (and his party) had to take all possible measures to ensure its survival to push it through. Apart from using Amar Singh to bribe some BJP MPs, the Congress, apparently, pitched on the MPs of Rashtriya Lok Dal, a regional political outfit of Uttar Pradesh (UP), more open to the lure of money. Headed by one Ajit Singh, a man of dubious reputation, the party has frequently figured in reports of its involvement in lending support for monetary considerations to shaky governments. Apparently, the US Embassy contact was told that the MPs of RLD had been paid a billion rupees each. Their reputation is such that even the Congressman, Nachiketa Kapur, who organised the payment, was not sure whether they would vote in favour of the government even after having been bribed. He, however, boasted that there was enough kept away in chests for further pay-offs, if necessary.
Yet another factor that makes the cable credible is the mention of Capt. Satish Sharma, an MP in Rajya Sabha, the Upper House, who also was met with by the US Embassy contact. Looks like, Capt. Sharma and Kapur were jointly in charge of the operation of bribing the RLD MPs. Once a close friend of the Late Rajiv Gandhi, he is now a close associate of Sonia Gandhi, widow of Rajiv Gandhi and the current Congress President. With a chequered political career and several brushes with the law, he, seemingly, has been involved in the dirty work of the Congress. He was also involved in 1993 in bribing the MPs of another regional political outfit, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), to save the minority Congress government of the Late Narsimha Rao in a trust-vote moved by the BJP. The investigations had revealed that various industrialists had paid Rs 13 crore (130 million) to Capt Satish Sharma, who arranged payments to the JMM MPs out of this amount. Narsimha Rao’s government did survive the trust vote.
Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, brazened out the WikiLeaks disclosures by an outright denial of the allegations of bribery and rejected the charge of the Opposition, which he said was based on “speculative, unverified and unverifiable'' communication, and told Parliament that none from the government or the Congress indulged in any unlawful act during that time. He went on to say that the government “cannot confirm the veracity, contents or even the existence of such communication.” At the then ongoing India Today Conclave he had said, “I have no knowledge of any such purchases and I am absolutely categorical, I have not authorised anyone to purchase any votes. I am not aware of any acts of purchase of votes…I am absolutely certain in asserting that I am not at all, I think, involved in any of these transactions”.
Nobody is buying what Dr. Singh has been saying in denial. Not only there was enough evidence gathered earlier, the US officials have since certified the accuracy and credibility of the cables now released by WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, Editor in-Chief of WikiLeaks, branded Dr. Singh’ statements of denial as “misleading”, a charge that is serious when made against a prime minister. Generally known for his clean image, Indian people are aghast at the way the Prime Minister, with his distinguished academic and bureaucratic background, staked his reputation and all that he had for winning a trust-vote to see a mere deal through. At a recent interview with the editors of Indian TV news channels he had said, that after his academic and bureaucratic stints, politics was a fresh field that was providing him a new learning experience. Apparently, he has been very quick in picking up the tricks of his current trade.
Apart from the image of Dr. Singh, the image of Congress has taken a severe beating. The grand old party, now more than a century and a quarter old, has, somewhere down in the post-independence years, lost its moral fibre and has acquired an insatiable lust for power. This very lust may see the end of it. Mahatma Gandhi happened to say in 1948 “...in the ungainly skirmish for power, it (Congress) will find one fine morning that it is no more.” That may well happen with the contemptible riff-raff that it now constitutes of, unless the party immediately sets about correcting its course.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Of venal politicians and their corrupt parties
The Outlook magazine, a popular national weekly, has been publishing excerpts from the taped conversations of Niira Radia, the now (in)famous lobbyist of, inter alia, the House of Tata, with several individuals, including the former Indian Telecommunications Minister, A Raja. In one of the tapes published in the issue of 14th February 2011 of Niira Radia’s conversation with one Manish, an employee at Vaishnavi Communications (another corporate communication consultancy firm) Radia says “In the middle of the night (Raja, the Minister) called Anil Ambani to come and collect his LoI (Letter of Intent) for a dual technology license” and “...when you ask Mr. Raja why are you doing this, his view is ‘what do you do, I have a party to run”.
The last bit of what Raja said is not only significant but also carries the nub of what has now come to be known as the “2 G scam” (the scam related to frequency allocation for mobile telephony to favoured parties) of the Ministry of Telecommunication & IT that he headed as also of many other scams. That Raja was required to, through his acts of omissions and commissions in the Ministry, ensure that the party coffers are filled as much as possible has now become somewhat of a standard political practice. He, most probably, had the same mandate before he was re-nominated for the Telecommunications Ministry in 2009. And, likewise, before him even Dayanidhi Maran, again of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), may also have had to work according to the same mandate. Clearly, DMK was keen on Telecommunications Ministry only for the reason that it could be milked for the benefit of the party and, of course, its patriarch M Karunanidhi. If, in the process, the ministers involved made some billions on the side the party bigwigs would, seemingly, have no objections.
Whether Raja, in his previous avatar as the head of the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF), did not do the same is open to question. After all, during his tenure in MoEF in UPA I government the epithet “rubber stamp” was largely used for the ministry. It would clear each and every project that came its way for environmental clearance regardless of the adverse impact that they would have on the country’s environment. Maybe it is hearsay, but the e-mails that are circulating in the country with photographs of his palatial modern-looking residence with extensive grounds could not have been inherited by a person who claims to be a dalit (a member of former depressed class). How it was built and what the sources of his resources are still a mystery.
Obviously, Raja’s party, the DMK, a regional outfit, has imbibed what its senior alliance partner, the Indian National Congress, has been adept in for a long time. The latter has, according to credible reports circulating for years, has been creaming the government decisions taken during its decades in power at the Centre and in the states to fill its own coffers. In the early years, Soviet money found its way not only to the Communist Party of India but also to the Congress. The thriving rupee trade between the two countries, particularly big-ticket imports of defence equipment, facilitated the illegal transfer of funds. That the Soviets had infiltrated into the Indian establishment within the country and abroad is, of course, another story. The Mitrokhin Archives threw generous spotlight on it and is now a part of history. It, inter alia, made a mention of the Soviet money getting to India with minsters like Lalit Narain Mishra, the then Minister for Foreign Trade, as conduit. His corrupt ways were legendary but in no way comparable to what happens today. Tales about his accepting briefcases full of currency used to be rife in Delhi during the early 1970s. Not only did he enrich the Congress, he enriched himself, too, but, unfortunately, to no avail. He was, reportedly, bumped off in 1975. He was, after all, “the man who knew too much”.
If the Soviets transferred funds to the Congress, the US could not have been left behind. The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a one-time US ambassador to India, in a collection of personal letters and journal entries edited by Steven R Weisman, a public policy fellow at Washington-based Peterson Institute, in a book “Daniel Patrick Moynihan: A Portrait in Letters of an American Visionary”, asserted that US had paid money through the CIA to the Congress Party. The charge was later taken advantage of by the late Jyoti Basu, a former communist chief minister of West Bengal, who speculated that the money was, probably, disbursed in the early 1970s to contain Naxalism, a violent and rabid movement of the Left, which had spread like wild fire in West Bengal. Although, the current Congress spokesperson rubbished the allegations, he wouldn’t know what transpired forty years ago between two hardnosed politicians like the late Indira Gandhi and the then all-powerful US secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger.
Last year the octogenarian eminent lawyer, Ram Jethmalani, accused the Congress of receiving payments from the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) after the Bhopal gas tragedy and demanded that all the correspondence between the Union Government and the company should be made public. He said that the then Union Government enacted a legislation abrogating the rights of thousands of dead and grievously injured victims to sue the company for compensation and appropriated the same to itself without the victims’ consent. It then promptly filed a suit for payment of adequate compensation the results of which are well-known. Not only a measly sum of $ 470 million was settled as compensation in an in camera sitting of the Supreme Court in the chamber of the then Chief Justice to which the UCC lawyers, reportedly, had come straight from the Prime Minister’s Office then headed by the late Rajiv Gandhi, the settlement also extinguished all financial liabilities of the UCC and the rights of the victims to file civil and criminal cases against the corporation – a very favourable turn of event for it.
Apparently, the quantum of compensation to be paid by the Corporation was also treated like a deal like the ones struck during those very years for import of Westland helicopters, HDW submarines and the (in)famous, though very effective, Bofors howitzers. However, the intense public resentment that was aroused as a sequel to the farcical judgement of June 2010 in the criminal case against the Indian bigwigs of Union Carbide India Ltd. the current coalition government led by the Congress at the Centre was forced to file a curative petition in the Supreme Court against the 1989 compensation settlement –generally branded as “collusive”. Agreeing that there had been an error in settling for the very meagre amount of compensation, it has now sought enhancement of compensation to the victims from Rs 750 crore (75 billion) to Rs 7,700 crore (770 Billion). That and the chain of events that followed the tragedy made it amply evident the collusive arrangement between the then Union Government and the UCC. In the aftermath of the tragedy, an overriding desire, among other things, on the parts of the state and Union governments, both then ruled by the Congress, to protect the interests of the company was clearly discernible. Jethmalani may well be right in making his accusation.
In our kind of democracy, which has progressively assumed an aberrant form, priorities of the political participants in the act of governance have got mixed up. Political parties seek power to exercise it not on the basis of Jeremy Bentham’s “Greatest Happiness Principle” but to ensure their own happiness and well-being as also of their members. This is true both, at the Centre and in the states. The ministers, like Raja, who are in a position to swing deals, direct their efforts towards enriching their party as also themselves. The basic idea is to enable the party to have enough means to swing elections in its favour by buying votes or managing polling booths or even buying legislators, if it came to that, for garnering support when it fails to get a clear majority. Having enough cash in party coffers is very essential as the going rate of a legislator could be in billions. All major national and regional parties are guilty of this sin.
Hence, it would seem as if governments in India exist only for the political players who happen to capture their reins. Milking of the state by way of foul means permeates the system spreading an environment that is utterly unethical. No wonder, party men like Raja who are pushed to head ministries for their proven record of venality indulge in massive scams, stoking further the already pervasive corruption in the Indian administration.
The last bit of what Raja said is not only significant but also carries the nub of what has now come to be known as the “2 G scam” (the scam related to frequency allocation for mobile telephony to favoured parties) of the Ministry of Telecommunication & IT that he headed as also of many other scams. That Raja was required to, through his acts of omissions and commissions in the Ministry, ensure that the party coffers are filled as much as possible has now become somewhat of a standard political practice. He, most probably, had the same mandate before he was re-nominated for the Telecommunications Ministry in 2009. And, likewise, before him even Dayanidhi Maran, again of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), may also have had to work according to the same mandate. Clearly, DMK was keen on Telecommunications Ministry only for the reason that it could be milked for the benefit of the party and, of course, its patriarch M Karunanidhi. If, in the process, the ministers involved made some billions on the side the party bigwigs would, seemingly, have no objections.
Whether Raja, in his previous avatar as the head of the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF), did not do the same is open to question. After all, during his tenure in MoEF in UPA I government the epithet “rubber stamp” was largely used for the ministry. It would clear each and every project that came its way for environmental clearance regardless of the adverse impact that they would have on the country’s environment. Maybe it is hearsay, but the e-mails that are circulating in the country with photographs of his palatial modern-looking residence with extensive grounds could not have been inherited by a person who claims to be a dalit (a member of former depressed class). How it was built and what the sources of his resources are still a mystery.
Obviously, Raja’s party, the DMK, a regional outfit, has imbibed what its senior alliance partner, the Indian National Congress, has been adept in for a long time. The latter has, according to credible reports circulating for years, has been creaming the government decisions taken during its decades in power at the Centre and in the states to fill its own coffers. In the early years, Soviet money found its way not only to the Communist Party of India but also to the Congress. The thriving rupee trade between the two countries, particularly big-ticket imports of defence equipment, facilitated the illegal transfer of funds. That the Soviets had infiltrated into the Indian establishment within the country and abroad is, of course, another story. The Mitrokhin Archives threw generous spotlight on it and is now a part of history. It, inter alia, made a mention of the Soviet money getting to India with minsters like Lalit Narain Mishra, the then Minister for Foreign Trade, as conduit. His corrupt ways were legendary but in no way comparable to what happens today. Tales about his accepting briefcases full of currency used to be rife in Delhi during the early 1970s. Not only did he enrich the Congress, he enriched himself, too, but, unfortunately, to no avail. He was, reportedly, bumped off in 1975. He was, after all, “the man who knew too much”.
If the Soviets transferred funds to the Congress, the US could not have been left behind. The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a one-time US ambassador to India, in a collection of personal letters and journal entries edited by Steven R Weisman, a public policy fellow at Washington-based Peterson Institute, in a book “Daniel Patrick Moynihan: A Portrait in Letters of an American Visionary”, asserted that US had paid money through the CIA to the Congress Party. The charge was later taken advantage of by the late Jyoti Basu, a former communist chief minister of West Bengal, who speculated that the money was, probably, disbursed in the early 1970s to contain Naxalism, a violent and rabid movement of the Left, which had spread like wild fire in West Bengal. Although, the current Congress spokesperson rubbished the allegations, he wouldn’t know what transpired forty years ago between two hardnosed politicians like the late Indira Gandhi and the then all-powerful US secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger.
Last year the octogenarian eminent lawyer, Ram Jethmalani, accused the Congress of receiving payments from the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) after the Bhopal gas tragedy and demanded that all the correspondence between the Union Government and the company should be made public. He said that the then Union Government enacted a legislation abrogating the rights of thousands of dead and grievously injured victims to sue the company for compensation and appropriated the same to itself without the victims’ consent. It then promptly filed a suit for payment of adequate compensation the results of which are well-known. Not only a measly sum of $ 470 million was settled as compensation in an in camera sitting of the Supreme Court in the chamber of the then Chief Justice to which the UCC lawyers, reportedly, had come straight from the Prime Minister’s Office then headed by the late Rajiv Gandhi, the settlement also extinguished all financial liabilities of the UCC and the rights of the victims to file civil and criminal cases against the corporation – a very favourable turn of event for it.
Apparently, the quantum of compensation to be paid by the Corporation was also treated like a deal like the ones struck during those very years for import of Westland helicopters, HDW submarines and the (in)famous, though very effective, Bofors howitzers. However, the intense public resentment that was aroused as a sequel to the farcical judgement of June 2010 in the criminal case against the Indian bigwigs of Union Carbide India Ltd. the current coalition government led by the Congress at the Centre was forced to file a curative petition in the Supreme Court against the 1989 compensation settlement –generally branded as “collusive”. Agreeing that there had been an error in settling for the very meagre amount of compensation, it has now sought enhancement of compensation to the victims from Rs 750 crore (75 billion) to Rs 7,700 crore (770 Billion). That and the chain of events that followed the tragedy made it amply evident the collusive arrangement between the then Union Government and the UCC. In the aftermath of the tragedy, an overriding desire, among other things, on the parts of the state and Union governments, both then ruled by the Congress, to protect the interests of the company was clearly discernible. Jethmalani may well be right in making his accusation.
In our kind of democracy, which has progressively assumed an aberrant form, priorities of the political participants in the act of governance have got mixed up. Political parties seek power to exercise it not on the basis of Jeremy Bentham’s “Greatest Happiness Principle” but to ensure their own happiness and well-being as also of their members. This is true both, at the Centre and in the states. The ministers, like Raja, who are in a position to swing deals, direct their efforts towards enriching their party as also themselves. The basic idea is to enable the party to have enough means to swing elections in its favour by buying votes or managing polling booths or even buying legislators, if it came to that, for garnering support when it fails to get a clear majority. Having enough cash in party coffers is very essential as the going rate of a legislator could be in billions. All major national and regional parties are guilty of this sin.
Hence, it would seem as if governments in India exist only for the political players who happen to capture their reins. Milking of the state by way of foul means permeates the system spreading an environment that is utterly unethical. No wonder, party men like Raja who are pushed to head ministries for their proven record of venality indulge in massive scams, stoking further the already pervasive corruption in the Indian administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The other day “The Hindu” brought out a feature on the guavas of Allahabad. Allahabad has, seemingly, always been famous for guavas. ... -
http://bagchiblog.blogspot.com View from my room We landed not at Haneda, but at Narita airport. Narita was opened to traffic in 197... -
http://www.bagchiblog.blogspot.com (In continuation of the previous post) With a desktop things became much easier although it took ...