Round The Word

New Delhi, 16 June 2009

Obama & India

BAD DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!

By Prof. Chintamani Mahapatra

Ever since the new US President, Barrack Hussein Obama, occupied the White House, improving relations with India appears to have faded from Washington’s foreign policy radar screen.

The US Administration is yet to send an Ambassador to New Delhi. Unsought advice on how to resolve the Kashmir issue is almost routinely given to India these days. President Obama and his foreign policy team have been airing the need for India to sign the NPT, CTBT and the future FMCT.

Also, there was an attempt to bracket India along with Afghanistan and Pakistan in a new strategy to combat the Al Qaeda and Taliban extremists. But there is hardly any mention about Mumbai’s 26/11 by the Obama Administration, let alone extending any concrete help to bring justice.

By bestowing praises on the Pakistani Government for its cooperation in fighting terrorism, the Obama Administration reminds one of similar praises bestowed on former President Pervez Musharraf earlier. Importantly, terror strikes in India no longer draw strong condemnation from Washington.

The Obama Administration also was prompt in announcing a new policy that would penalize American companies outsourcing jobs to India. Subsequently, the US President warned American kids to beware of Indian and Chinese students performing better than them.

The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to China and Indonesia but did not think it proper to include India in her itinerary. Before her Asian trip, the Vice President-elect Joe Biden too visited Islamabad but did not think it appropriate to stop-over at New Delhi.

Yet again, Barrack Obama visited Cairo and gave a long address to the people of the Islamic World. He spoke almost everything positive about Islam except the fact that India has a huge Muslim population that participates in an untainted democratic process for decades, thus setting a good example to other parts of the Islamic World.

All these developments remind one of the early days of the last Democratic Presidency under the leadership of Bill Clinton. President Clinton made the new Indian Ambassador to Washington wait for months before he could present his credential. The Assistant Secretary of State went to the extent of challenging the legal validity of the Instrument of Accession that made Jammu and Kashmir a part of India.

India was put on the hit list of Super 301 and Special 301 provisions of the US Omnibus Trade Act. The non-proliferation Ayatoallahs’ of Clinton’s Administration also made considerable noises about the need for India to sign the NPT.

At the moment it looks like bad old days are back again. Of course, there are differences between the early Clinton era and the early Obama era. India was no great friend of the United States. New Delhi had lost her strategic partner --- Soviet Union --- that had disintegrated about a couple of years before Clinton’s entry into the Oval Office. Thus, Clinton’s approach towards India during his Administration’s early years was logical, rational and understandable.

On the contrary, President Obama’s approach towards India is quite incomprehensible.  By the time he made history by winning the 2008 US Presidential election, Indo-US relations had improved beyond one’s imagination. The two estranged democracies had transited from being two engaged democracies to two significant strategic partners.

The military-to-military cooperation between India and the US had matured. The US-India civilian nuclear deal that passed through several domestic hurdles in both countries to finally culminate in a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement had the support and approval of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. But President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton appear to have forgotten about its importance to an extent that they have failed to give it a push for its timely implementation.

Understandably, the Obama Administration is overly busy with the economic crisis, planned troops withdrawal from Iraq, implementation of a new strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan and the need for altering America’s image in the Islamic World.

However, there is no gainsaying that the excessive attention towards crisis situation and failure to nurture new relationships and strategic partnerships can be truly counter-productive in the long run. What President George Bush earned during 8 years of his Administration could be lost in just a couple of years due to the negligence by the Obama Administration.

President Obama needs to revisit the Clinton Presidency years a little more seriously to learn why President Clinton decided to visit India at the fag end of his Administration to chart out a new course of his country’s policy towards India.

President George Bush smartly capitalized on Clinton’s new initiative towards India and gave an unprecedented momentum to improve cooperation with New Delhi in a wide array of areas. But President Obama is likely to turn the clock back, unless he takes some innovative steps to build on the structure from where President Bush left.

Any further delay in taking active interest to strengthen the new strategic partnership with India will cost President Obama and his country dearly, notwithstanding that India would also be a loser to a certain extent.

The Obama Administration should do the following: One, he should not allow his India policy to be dictated by Islamabad. Two, he should take a few quick measures to reiterate the significance of US-India relations for regional stability and global good. Three, he should lose no time in re-emphasizing the importance of the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation and provide leadership for its prompt implementation.

The mistake of the Obama Administration is quite clear. His non-proliferation statements and initiatives threaten to bring the nuclear irritant in Indo-US ties. Which was so painstakingly removed by his predecessor President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Significantly, the Obama Administration has tied its hands behind its back despite US intelligence reports confirming steady expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Its dialogue diplomacy has neither convinced Iran to abandon its nuclear path nor encouraged North Korea to close down its nuclear weapons facilities. Syria is the new emerging proliferation concern. While China has been taking the US for a ride by clandestinely supporting Pakistan, Iran and North Korea.

Against the backdrop of all these developments, the Obama Non-proliferation team appears to have turned a blind eye to the non-proliferation gains from the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement. They appear to be training their guns against India, as indicated by their statements on CTBT, NPT and FMCT.

In the ultimate, by neglecting the achievements in US-Indian relations and its repeated rhetoric on nuclear issues could derail the current state of US-Indian ties. Wherein, the liberal Obama Administration then might stand accused of having commonalities with India's Communists on issues relating to Indo-US relations. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

POLITICAL DIARY 

New Delhi, 20 June 2009

Independent Speaker

PARTIES, PLEASE OBLIGE

By Poonam I Kaushish

Some things never really change. Especially when it comes to our netagan and Parliament. Always dogged by controversies. The latest is an innocuous remark:  Lok Sabha Speakers should resign from their parties in order to remain neutral. Clearly, setting the cat amongst the pigeons!

Trust, former Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, known for speaking his mind out, to start a debate afresh. Said he recently, “Parties should desist from using Constitutional posts, such as Speakership, as gifts or charity to oblige Party workers as it detracts from the position of the Speaker.” Adding cryptically, "It is better if a person occupying the Speaker’s post resigns from his or her Party to avoid conflict of interest.” Leading to political tongues wagging.

Was he referring to his successor Meira Kumar’s elevation as India’s first woman Speaker, barely a few days after being inducted as Union Cabinet Minister? Was it simply because she was a woman and Dalit? What to speak of her ‘political’ statement backing the women’s reservation Bill piloted by the Congress amidst strong opposition by some regional parties. “That a woman has been elected Speaker is an indication that the women’s Bill should be passed in the 15^th Lok Sabha,” she had averred.

Not a few dismissed it as a case of sour grapes. Recall, Chatterjee was expelled from the CPM for his refusal to quit as Speaker over the Congress-CPM standoff on the nuclear deal. Steadfastly maintaining that as Speaker he had to remain neutral. No matter that Speaker Chatterjee continued renewing his Party membership and paying the levy of 5% of his monthly salary to the CPM for over four years!

Either which way, Chatterjee needs to be applauded for reiterating the importance of an independent and impartial Speaker and fueling afresh a Constitutional debate on the issue. Under the Westminster system of Parliamentary democracy in Britain, an MP resigns from the Party on his election as Speaker. What is more, the Speaker is re-elected unopposed to the House of Commons in subsequent elections. The principle applies to all parties.

Sadly, although the Lok Sabha rules of procedure were largely based on the Westminster model, the all-important issue of having an independent Speaker was overlooked. Worse, few follow the premise that a Speaker is expected to be above Party politics, not a plaything of the Party. But as one former Lok Sabha Speaker told me: “We are elected on Party tickets with party funds. How can we claim independence? Moreover, even if we resign on becoming the Speaker, we would still have to go back to the same Party for sponsorship for the next election.”

Thus, most Speakers have been Party members, especially after laying down Office or prior to it. Barring, Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, who after assuming the office of Speaker formally resigned from his Party, all others remained active in politics. From the Lok Sabha’s second Speaker Ayyangar, who became Bihar Governor on expiry of his term as Speaker. Hukam Singh too followed suit.

Many like GS Dhillon and Manohar Joshi switched roles as Ministers to Speakers. Balram Jhakar never tried to conceal his political identity as a Congress leader and Rabi Ray lived up to the Janata Party’s expectations. What to speak of Congress’s Shivraj Patil, who after a full tenure as Speaker, lost the re-election, but overnight was nominated to the Rajya Sabha and anointed as the country’s Home Minister. Now, no longer are eyebrows raised!

Luckily, the tendency of Assembly Speakers in the States taking active part in power struggles and group politics has not yet spread to the Centre. However, over the past six decades, many unfortunate developments have taken place at the Centre and in the States deeply involving the Speakers in active politics. The anti-defection law has been increasingly abused by the political parties with the help of the Speaker to cobble up majorities and enable the Government of the day to continue or fall by the wayside. Jharkhand and Goa, two cases in point.

The Opposition too is not without blame. It has unfortunately not always acted in its best self-interest by denying, in effect, cooperation in prodding for the uncontested election of a Speaker. It has failed to appreciate that its need of an independent and impartial Speaker is much greater than that of the Government which, in any case, is able to take care of itself with its majority.

More. In a hung Parliament and coalition milieu, the role of the Speaker becomes even more crucial. His rulings and decisions can make or break the ruling party. Take the case of a split in a Party. It is the Speaker who decided whether it was a “split” or a case of defection. His ruling was binding. By this one act, he could “destroy” a Party and facilitate another’s rule. Remember, the famous split by Chandra Shekhar of the Janata Dal, which led to the fall of the V.P. Singh Government. The Speaker’s decision on V.P. Singh’s plea that the split was illegal came more than a year after the fall of the Government!

One sure way of achieving the impartiality and independence of the Speaker was to depoliticize his office, so that the Speaker could keep himself entirely aloof from Party politics. Another more important way was to provide for his uncontested return to the House. But Nehru failed to do the needful despite the clear lead given initially by Vithalbhai Patel in the pre-Independence days and the healthy convention sought to be established by Mavalankar.

Vithalbhai, who succeeded Sir Frederick Whyte as India’s first Indian Speaker in 1925, disassociated himself from the Swarajist Party of which he was an active member prior to his election and kept himself aloof from party interests during his entire term of office. Also, in the election of 1926, he did not stand on the Congress ticket but contested as an independent and was returned unopposed!

Importantly, free India’s first Speaker, Mavalankar, tried hard to persuade Nehru to recognize the need to institutionalize the impartiality and independence of the Speaker by providing for the uncontested election of the Speaker. Sadly, however, the exercise proved to be in vain and things did not work out the way Mavalankar hoped.

Since then it has been a steady downhill. The Speaker, after all, is human and it has not always been possible (or practicable) for him to resist political temptation in the absence of a definite convention assuring his continuance in office through uncontested Parliamentary election.

True, Speaker Meira Kumar has made plain her intent of playing ‘neutral’. Towards that end, her hands would be strengthened if top Party leaders agree to place the Speaker above electoral politics and thereby enable him/her to function impartially and independently. Conventions designed to achieve this end exist. Our netagan have been aware of them all along. Regrettably, however, they have merely paid lip service to healthy Parliamentary traditions.

In sum, political India needs to ponder on Chatterjee’s suggestions. Given that the impartiality of the Lok Sabha Speaker is even more important as he has more absolute powers than his opposite number in the House of Commons. Hence the need to depoliticise the Speaker’s office by common consent and enable him to rise above political temptation and maintain his independence.

As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gets down to bringing about change in governance, he must recognize the key role of the Speaker and enable him to serve India’s parliamentary democracy impartially like a true servant with total loyalty and devotion. He needs to remember and adopt the traditional British maxim: “Once Speaker always Speaker”---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

EVENTS & ISSUES

New Delhi,15 June 2009

Indian Bureaucracy

SUFFOCATING, SLOW & SPINELESS

By Proloy Bagchi

Reams have been written in recent years about the Indian bureaucracy. Established by the British to consolidate their hold on the vast territories they acquired in the country, its main component the Indian Civil Service (ICS) was once described as the “steel frame” of the Indian Government.

Post-Independence, however, the Indian bureaucracy progressively got politicised and became increasingly sleazy and venal. The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) – the successor of the famed ICS --- dominates the entire spectrum of Indian Administration, both at the Centre and in the States. Occupying virtually all positions of consequence, its members are busy lavishing on themselves generous perks. And, slowly and inefficaciously grind out, if at all, measly lumps of favours for the aam aadmi.

A recent survey by the Hong Kong-based Political & Economic Risk Consultancy found the Indian bureaucrats that they are “a power centre in their own right at both the national and State levels, and are extremely resistant to reform that affects them or the way they go about their duties".

According to its report, while the Singapore civil servants were the most efficient among their Asian peers, their Indian counterparts were found to be “suffocating”, working with whom was a “slow and painful” process.

But that is not all that can be said about the Indian bureaucracy. There is another quality of it that seems to have been missed by the Consultancy ---- that is it has progressively become spineless. The much-vaunted “steel frame” has become a frame seemingly made of fragile twigs that the sparrows use to build their nests.  Attempting to feather their own nests they have sold their soul to their political masters. Those, whose raison d’être was aiding and advising their political superiors, have actually ended up doing, for better or for worse, the latter’s bidding, thus becoming the politician’s foot soldiers.

The history of 60 years of the IAS is littered with instances that illustrate this attribute. But a recent instance from the Madhya Pradesh (MP) lends a contemporaneous touch to it. Sanjana Jain, a spunky woman belonging to the State’s Indian Revenue and Administrative Service, who recently stood her ground against the bullying tactics of a Minister, was promptly let down by the senior bureaucracy of the State.

Until recently, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Dewas, a district headquarter in the State Sanjana while functioning as the Returning Officer of the Sonkutch constituency for the MP Legislative Assembly elections in November 2008 had a confrontation with a Minister in the State Government, Tukoji Rao Puar. He tried to browbeat her to cancel the candidature of the adversarial Congress nominee in the constituency.

The Minister not only barged into her office, entered into an unseemly argument with Sanjana but also lost his equanimity and threw a bunch of papers at her. This was caught on camera and telecast by virtually all the news channels. However, at the instance of the Election Commission, a report was duly filed with the police and the Minister arrested, only to be granted bail later.

Post-elections, Sanjana was reverted to her administrative post and, under orders of her superiors, was asked to check out Dewas’s eating places. Given that it was prone to cholera and other infectious diseases. But she fell foul yet again of Tukoji Rao Puar who had become a Minister for the second time.

The food-joint owner was found to be indulging in many irregularities and was operating without the necessary permissions. As he happened to be a lackey of the Minister. When caught by Sanjana, he used his influence with the Minister, who, true to his form, again entered into a lengthy argument with the Officer charging her of bias against his Party- men. When Sanjana refused to succumb to the Minister’s pressure, the matter was taken right up to the Chief Minister.

That the lady officer took on the Minister, even after an earlier unpleasant incident speaks volumes for her guts, courage of conviction and commitment to her duties. Very few of her colleagues, including her seniors in the IAS, have seldom displayed the same. As expected by her and her colleagues, she was peremptorily transferred by the State Administration under pressure from the political executive. That, however, is neither here nor there. She made her point and, hopefully, created a benchmark for official conduct, which many of her junior and senior colleagues might like to strive to work up to.

On the other hand, the ruling Party, came out in poor light. Surely, people will not easily forget this sordid episode of a Minister preventing an official from taking administrative action to ensure public health and general well-being of the people.

Importantly, the most condemnable attitude was displayed by the State’s bureaucracy. It was sickening to see its lack of spine. It did not come to the rescue of a field officer who was literally stopped in her tracks from doing her duty. Not only was she bullied by a brash Minister before a crowd of onlookers, she was also reported to have been insulted in front of a defaulter whom she had been able to catch breaching the relevant extant laws.

The bureaucracy, members of which are called public servants, failed to put up a fight.  Forget the officer, even for the cause of the public, and caved in the face of political pressure. Such brazen political interference in administrative work may have acquired run-of-the-mill character for the higher bureaucracy but it should have been the business of those who wield power over junior functionaries to sift chaff from the grain and be more judicious and circumspect before handing out decisions.

After all, the needlessly penalised officer was only attempting to ensure the public’s health and well-being. Besides, her efforts would also have saved public expenditure on maintaining public health. It is not unknown to the bureaucracy that it is largely the unscrupulous operators in the food sector who, generally, are responsible for choking up the public health-care facilities, especially during the hot and humid season when adulterated and rotten foodstuff is often dished out to the unwary customer.

As it stands, Madhya Pradesh is a State which suffers from a severe deficit of governance. By giving short shrift to the courage and righteousness of the officer, who happened to be the unwitting victim of crude exercise of the powerful and brash politician, the bureaucracy has further demoralised the State’s official machinery. More, it has wittingly or unwittingly, given a fillip to further non-governance. And, reprehensibly, leaving the people at the mercy of unscrupulous politicians and their crooked supporters. ----- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 12 June 2009

Education Scam

GOVT FAILS TO CHECK CORRUPTION

By Dhurjati Mukherjee

The recent scam of two colleges, Shree Balaji Medical College & Hospital and Sri Ramachandra University (SRU) demanding Rs 20 to Rs 40 lakh as capitation fee for admission has created a furore. No matter that taking capitation fee is an open secret. The price for a post-graduate seat in most private medical colleges across the country is around Rs 2 crores. In fact, most institutions demand extra fees either directly or through their agents, and in some cases the capitation fees are higher.

Such institutions normally enjoy the involvement/patronage of politicians or bureaucrats. In the present two cases too, a DMK Union Minister of State is involved. The clout that the SRU wields can be gauged from the fact that it has the Medical Council of India’s (MCI) President Ketan Desai and Vice- President Kesavankutty Nair on its board. Never mind, Desai was asked to step down from the President’s post in 2001 following corruption charges but was again re-elected.  

Recall, the Supreme Court had ordered an unambiguous ban on capitation fee in August 2003. The five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by the then Chief Justice V. N. Khare, ruled in the TMA Pai case that, “under no circumstances the educational institutions could charge capitation fee or indulge in profiteering”. But most institutions made a mockery of merit in education. Wherein once they became well known they turned into money-spinning rackets. Moreover, the rich were willing to pay capitation fee to ensure their wards admission in medical or engineering colleges.

According to the Delhi High Court, the MCI is a “den of corruption” and yet the Government has done nothing to clean it up and add moral force to the regulator. Ditto the case of the All India Council for Technical Institution (AICTE) where recognition for engineering courses has been accorded at random without proper infrastructure and faculty. Most of the known institutions charge capitation fees for back-door entry though the demand for engineering seats is less than that for medicine.

The Government’s negligence is obvious thanks to the involvement of society’s bigwigs and leaders in such institutions. Shockingly, the ‘deemed university’ status has been granted to unproven and questionable educational bodies. In the last five years alone the ‘deemed university’ status has been conferred on medical colleges’ nationwide, raising doubts among experts on the caliber of most of these institutions.

Incidentally, Tamil Nadu has the highest number of deemed universities followed by Karnataka and Maharashtra. Not only that. There are instances of educational institutions being conferred deemed university status even before the first batch of students have passed out. Clearly, smacking of bureaucratic recklessness and complicity at high places.

Think. If there was no capitation fee, no promoter’s quota in medical and engineering colleges and strict vigilance in these institutions, the question of doling out money to get mediocre students admitted would not arise. It is only because of loopholes in our law and the willingness of the Governmental machinery to see that the wealthy get preference in all matters that corruption in educational institutions persists.

Sadly, the meritorious and poor students suffer. Even if they get admission without paying any capitation fee, it is virtually impossible for most families belonging to the lower income groups to pay the fees and hostel charges in private medical or engineering colleges

Look at the irony. While the business community aided by the politicians and bureaucrats reap money by opening educational institutions and nursing homes, the poor, as usual, suffer. In spite of getting good results they cannot get themselves admitted to private specialized institutions. The few scholarships that are available barely cover 10 per cent of the deserving candidates.

Worse, both the Central and State Government’s are making no efforts to ensure better facilities for the deserving students Surprisingly, the Central Government does not give the Children’s Education Allowance of Rs 1000 per month (earlier a miniscule Rs 40 per month) until a child passes Class XII!  Indeed, strange.

Further, there is urgent need to set up Central Universities, IITs along with centres of higher learning to ensure that students from low income groups get the best quality education, both in Government institutions and private colleges. This is not to suggest that the middle income group does not suffer. They suffer equal pain when their wards do not get grades to qualify for admission in Government institutions.

Compounding matters, private institutions ask for capitation fee. While in the case of engineering colleges it is monies paid ‘for qualifying’, in medical colleges even if a student qualifies he still has to pay ‘for admission.’

In the case of deemed University, which conduct their own examinations, only those who pay earlier qualify. The capitation fee ranges around Rs 10 to Rs 40 lakhs. A ‘sufferer’ of capitation fee had to pay Rs 8 lakhs extra for her daughter’s admission to a deemed University medical institution in Pondicherry even after ‘applying pull.’

In sum, the need of the hour is sincerity and vigilant action by honest politicians. Some institutions need to be immediately blacklisted to set an example for others and check their nefarious activities. Simultaneously, each institution should reduce its fees by 40-50 per cent for students belonging to the lower income groups, having an income below Rs 120,000-Rs 150,000 per annum. The earlier the Government acts the better. ----- INFA

 (Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)