Congress Deserve To Lose

Congress deserves to lose India’s electionsBy Razeen Sally , The Financial Times, LondonPublished: April 15 2009 21:55 Last updated: April 15 2009 21:55Indians will from Thursday begin heading to the polls in a month-long election for a new government. The Congress party is standing on the record of the government it has led since 2004. But polls are taking place when the Indian economy has taken a sharp turn for the worse, in a climate of global economic crisis. This exposes the do-nothing, zero-reform record of Manmohan Singh, prime minister, and his government. More generally, it lays bare India’s huge reform gaps and its brittle, decaying institutions. Finally, it deflates the “India hype” peddled by smooth-talking upper-caste politicians, ambassadors, businessmen, management consultants and some academics. A word about India hype. It highlights high-end services, and now manufacturing sectors, with their globalising, world-beating companies. But it overlooks reform deficits in agriculture, services and manufacturing. It talks of “Chindia”, the notion that India plays in the same league as China as an emerging superpower – which is pure myth. Not least, it glosses over the record of the present Congress-led government.There have been practically no market reforms since 2004, save for the opening of domestic civil aviation. Nothing has moved on privatisation, the reduction of government equity in banks and insurance companies, pensions, competition regulation or the administration of subsidies. Industrial tariffs have come down, but otherwise external protection has not been reduced. India remains the most protectionist large emerging market. Worse, there has been reform backsliding and reversal. Fiscal restraint, written into law in 2003, has been thrown to the winds. Now, with an economic downturn, the consolidated government deficit is projected to rise above 10 per cent of gross domestic product. Funding for much-needed infrastructure projects will suffer. Controlled pricing of petroleum products was reintroduced in 2008. Off-budget expenditure has increased significantly, especially through populist measures to support rural employment and the energy sector.The government’s response to the present global economic crisis was to introduce further market-distorting restrictions, including higher tariffs, anti-dumping duties and assorted non-tariff import barriers.Finally, the Congress party entered the general election campaign with pledges to expand its hugely wasteful rural employment guarantee programme and increase food subsidies. The government has squandered the boom years, left the country more vulnerable to malign global economic conditions and compromised prospects for a healthy recovery. But Manmohan Singh and his “dream team” have been given an easy ride: they have escaped blame, especially outside India. The conventional excuse is that their hands are tied by Sonia Gandhi and her Congress coterie, and by coalition politics.This explanation just does not wash. Mr Singh has impeccable academic credentials and is by all accounts incorruptible. He deserves credit for his performance as finance minister in the 1990s – although credit should also go to Narasimha Rao, then prime minister, who took the tough decisions.But Mr Singh has proved a hopeless decision-maker as prime minister. Sadly, he proves the rule that academics should generally be “on tap” but not “on top”.The whole reform programme relies on the prime minister himself. Mr Rao and A.B. Vajpayee proved their mettle, despite heavy political constraints. Mr Singh has failed; he should bear much of the blame. The Congress party does not deserve to be re-elected and the dream team does not deserve to continue in office. An alternative BJP-led government may do better if it has a decisive leader with a core of able reformers. It will not if its leader follows the dictates of short-term opportunism and messy coalition politics.Nevertheless, the failures of the Congress-led government should be put into a larger institutional context. The Indian state, led by a venal political-bureaucratic elite, remains unreformed. State institutions – the political class, political parties, parliaments, the bureaucracy, the judiciary – have got worse at both national and state levels. Since the late 1980s, “stealth” reforms have taken place outside the state. But India cannot be expected to grow fast with such shaky foundations. The upshot is that much-needed market reforms cannot continue to skirt round the reform of the state itself. Politically, that is the hardest nut to crack. The writer is director of the European Centre for International Political Economy

Why Ex Servicemen should be heard

The Tribune Thursday, April 16, 2009, Chandigarh, IndiaIt is true that the defence forces have their conduct rules and are known to those who intend to join the services (Letters to the Editor, “Veterans’ agitation” by Neeraj Kishore Sharma, April 7). But does it mean that the armed forces have to be mute spectators to their continuous degradation in status and pay vis-a-vis other government employees as has been happening in India over the past decades? The Sixth Pay Commission was the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back. Serving in defence forces may not be mandatory but so is the case in other departments of the government. If the civilian employees can indulge in agitations on flimsy grounds, why can’t the retired defence personnel take recourse to peaceful protests to highlight the injustice and humiliation being routinely heaped on them? Are they bonded slaves or lumpen elements to be shooed and snubbed at will? “One rank, one pension”, the main demand of the veterans, is a sensitive issue because of the specific ethos of the defence personnel and the very early age at which most of them are edged out and made to retire as compared to the civilians. Frankly, a nation that ignores and insults its soldiers, sooner or later comes to grief. Do we want this to happen to India? WG-CDR S C KAPOOR (retd), Noida

Offence is the Best Defence

An Answer to Congress on Kandahar
by ravilochanan on Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:20 pm
I simply do not understand as to why Advaniji and the BJP is unnecessarily going on the defence on Kanadahar issue. Why is Advaniji saying that he did not know about the release of terrorists? It is NOT a proper answer to the criticisms.The plane was hijacked from Kathmandu (NEPAL) not from Indian soil. Therefore, it was not a security lapse on the part of the Indian government. After that, the government did its best to safely bring back all the passengers.But what about the following episodes during the Congress rule:1. Did not Congress exchange terrorists for the life of a SINGLE lady, the daughter of M.M. Sayeed? Considering that Sayeed and his family do not have an inkling of patriotic feeling towards the Indian nation, how can it ever be justified? Atleast the BJP government brought back the 'TRUE' citizens of this nation not some secessionist.2. What about the Hazratbal incident? Why did the Congress adopt different practices in the case of HAzratbal mosque unlike waht it did with the Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple) of Amritsar?Any answers there?Why is the BJP not pointing out these issues?As for the Parliament attack, the Congress has been holding back the death sentence of Afzal. What right do they have to talk about reacting to terrorist attacks? BJP opposes terrorism very clearly. But Congress simply doesnt care about the subject unless it feels that the issue is going to affect its votebank.Final attack: What is the stage of investigations into the Mumbai train attack, Assam multiple blasts etc?? How many people have been chargesheeted and convicted? How many have been arrested?Dont we see the true face of Congress in the fact that Mumbai train attack (in which hundreds died) is not investigated much but Malegaon blasts (less than 10 died here) was given complete attention over all other terror issues?Hit the Congress hard. Dont go on the defensive. We are doing the same mistakes done by the Indian kings during the various invasions. Please understand that a good offense is the best defense.

26/11 responsible for my decision to contest polls

I was born in a small village called Gorur in Hassan district of Karnataka. My father was a poor school teacher and a farmer as well. I went to a Kannada-medium school till Class V after which I was selected at the Sainik School in Bijapur which had just been set up to cater to students in Karnataka. Incidentally, I failed the first time I appeared for the entrance exam as the paper was in English of which I did not know a word. My headmaster, however, was a very determined man and he wrote to the defence ministry asking them how they hoped to recruit boys from villages in South India if the paper was held in English and not in their mother tongue. I was able to appear again for the exam, this time in Kannada and that's how I got selected.
After completing school, I got selected to the NDA (National Defence Academy) and went on to be commissioned in the Indian Army where I spent the next eight years and fought in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation war. I quit the Army to come back to my village and take up farming. I got into sericulture and eco-farming. Later, I set up Deccan Charter, India's first private helicopter charter company which was followed by India's first low-cost airline Air Deccan. My dream was to have an inclusive India with equitable growth for which connectivity was crucial.
I have been involved in different enterprises, in different fields and have managed to build meaningful businesses which contributed to nation-building. Over the past two decades, I have been a critic of several Government policies and systems and have worked with successive Governments on policy for reforms and progressive measures, particularly in the aviation sector.
I have decided to enter the electoral fray because I believe that India today is crying out for change, a change from divisive party politics steeped in communal and caste votes which has made corruption and ill-governance a way of life in this country. Some of the key issues that made me decide were the Mumbai terror attacks where we appeared to be a failed state, with a bunch of terrorists taking over our very lives. Another was the pub attack in Karnataka and the moral policing goons who want to decide how the women in this country should dress or behave! The sight of women being insulted, with all of us watching, shook me from my reverie. The need of the hour is in believing that you can make a change and not watch from the outside and criticise. If we want a safe future for us and our future generations, we have to stop this degeneration that is taking place in our public life.
I am convinced that today our greatest need is to rid society of communalism and casteism; eradicate corruption and bring in good governance for development and fulfill the ideals on which this nation was formed. I want to make a political and developmental platform which will represent all communities and all religions. I want to drive my vision for India, for Karnataka and for Bangalore on a foundation which has two wheels of change - social harmony and good governance. These are the two pillars of a strong nation. Right governance will not only ensure communal harmony but also the right policies and systems which support the economy and citizens without having to resort to bribes and sycophancy. The opportunity for a happier future for us lies in getting these very fundamentals of our social fabric right.
I have decided to contest the Lok Sabha elections as an Independent candidate. I did not choose a party as every candidate who represents a party does so by forfeiting his right to think! Because only the high command for every party thinks and plans and the voice of the constituents are never heard. I am planning to set up citizens' committee at constituency levels to bring in participative governance and be the voice of the constituency. I am asked time and again as to what change can an Independent bring about? Well, we have to begin somewhere; Gandhiji brought about a change in an era where there were no modes of communication but every clarion call of his for non-violence brought scores of supporters on the streets and one of the biggest movements in history was created. You and I can make this change possible. This begins with exercising your vote: Cast your vote but do not vote for your caste. By Capt Gopinath

Teestas Act Play

NGOs, Teesta spiced up Gujarat riot incidents: SIT14 Apr 2009, 1213 hrs IST, Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNNNEW DELHI: The Special Investigation Team responsible for the arrests of those accused in Gujarat riots has severely censured NGOs and social activist Teesta Setalvad who campaigned for the riot victims. In a significant development, the SIT led by former CBI director R K Raghavan told the Supreme Court on Monday that the celebrated rights activist cooked up macabre tales of wanton killings. Many incidents of killings and violence were cooked up, false charges were levelled against then police chief P C Pandey and false witnesses were tutored to give evidence about imaginary incidents, the SIT said in a report submitted before a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam. The SIT said it had been alleged in the Gulbarg Society case that Pandey, instead of taking measures to protect people facing the wrath of rioteers, was helping the mob. The truth was that he was helping with hospitalisation of riot victims and making arrangements for police bandobast, Gujarat counsel, senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, said quoting from the SIT report. Rohtagi also said that 22 witnesses, who had submitted identical affidavits before various courts relating to riot incidents, were questioned by the SIT which found that they had been tutored and handed over the affidavits by Setalvad and that they had not actually witnessed the riot incidents. The SIT also found no truth in the following incidents widely publicised by the NGOs: * A pregnant Muslim woman Kausar Banu was gangraped by a mob, who then gouged out the foetus with sharp weapons * Dumping of dead bodies into a well by rioteers at Naroda Patiya * Police botching up investigation into the killing of British nationals, who were on a visit to Gujarat and unfortunately got caught in the riots Rohtagi said: "On a reading of the report, it is clear that horrendous allegations made by the NGOs were false. Stereotyped affidavits were supplied by a social activist and the allegations made in them were found untrue." Obviously happy with the fresh findings of the SIT which was responsible for the recent arrests of former Gujarat minister Maya Kodanani and VHP leader Jaideep Patel, Rohtagi tried to spruce up the image of the Modi administration, which was castigated in the Best Bakery case by the apex court as "modern day Neros". He was swiftly told by the Bench that but for the SIT, many more accused, who are freshly added, would not have been brought to book. The Bench said there was no room for allegations and counter-allegations at this late stage. "In riot cases, the more the delay, there is likelihood of falsity creeping in. So, there should be a designated court to fast track the trials. Riot cases should be given priority because feelings run high having a cascading effect," it said and asked for suggestions from the Gujarat government, Centre, NGOs and amicus curiae Harish Salve, who said the time had come for the apex court to lift the stay on trials into several post-Godhra riot cases. While additional solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam agreed with the court that public prosecutors should be selected in consultation with Raghavan, counsel Indira Jaising said there should be a complete regime for protection of witnesses as the same government, which was accused of engineering the riots, was in power now. Salve said that he would consult Raghavan and let the court know about a witness protection system for post-Godhra riot cases. The court asked the parties to submit their suggestions within a week. dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NGOs-Teesta-spice

IAS and IFS Babus Never Retire

One of the reasons why the Sixth Pay Commission (SPC) had substantially raised the salary for chairmen of all the regulatory bodies was to make that job a little more attractive for professionals and experts from the private sector. The time has now come to check out if the government has indeed used the better pay package for its regulators to widen the choice and attract private sector people.
A few weeks ago, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government selected Dhanendra Kumar, a retired IAS officer, as the chairman of the Competition Commission of India (CCI). There were many candidates in the fray, but most of them belonged to the civil service.
Once again, a large number of the candidates in contention for the Trai chairman’s job are civil servants belonging to the IAS. Only one of the candidates belongs to the private sector. Will the government’s search committee make a departure by recommending a non-IAS officer for the job? This appears unlikely.
Civil servants get upset when questioned on why only serving or retired IAS officers are selected to head the many regulatory bodies that have been set up in the wake of economic reforms. At present, there is only one regulatory body, the Directorate General, Hydrocarbons (DGH), which is not headed by a serving or a retired IAS officer. V K Sibal worked in a public sector oil company before taking charge of the DGH.
Nobody can, of course, argue that IAS officers are not competent to lead a regulatory organisation. Given their exposure to the manner in which the government machinery functions and the need for a regulator to understand the working of the government system, IAS officers have a definite advantage over professionals or experts from the private sector. But that should not rule out the possibility of private sector /defence sector with requisite experience in a sector from performing equally well in leading a regulatory organisation. Indeed, attempts were made in the past to get private sector professionals to head regulatory bodies. These moves, however, did not bear any fruit because the salary offered to a head of a regulatory body was not attractive enough for a private sector professional.
The SPC took note of this feedback and made amends. Ironically, however, the enhanced pay package has made the job of a chairman of a regulatory body even more attractive for the IAS officers, particularly for those who are approaching retirement. And only a few applications have come from private sector professionals. In sharp contrast, several secretaries to the Union government were interested in heading the Competition Commission of India. The list of candidates being considered for the Trai chairman’s post also has several secretaries, including even the finance secretary.
The post of the chairman of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission remained vacant for several months till A K Basu, an IAS officer, retired and took charge. Similarly, Dipak Chaterjee was identified to head the Competition Commission of India just before he was due to retire as commerce secretary.
Yet, the concern that the SPC sought to address remains valid. What should the government do now? It may be time now to create a pool of experts, selected from Corporate/ Private /Defence Services sector professionals, which could be used by the government’s search committees to identify the chairman of a regulatory body. The search committee, which at present is largely influenced by the ministers concerned, will then be able to act more independently and have a larger pool of talent to choose from.
Comments
IAS/IFS babus can never retire. There are plethora of such bodies and all sorts of Commissions (Literacy, Urban Renewal etc., etc.), so-called state-encouraged NGOs and on and on . These bodies are all a carefully orchestrated and a subtly choreographed activity that every civil servant engages in once s/he reaches the level of a Joint Secretary. The aim is ensuring a more-than-gainful "post-official-retirement" employment (and, more importantly, continued exercise of real power) well into one's seventies, if not the eighties. If a survey is conducted there would hardly be a 'retired' IAS/IFS who would not be found "earnestly" advising/guiding India to a "better" future, because all non-IAS/IFS are men and women of such a lower ability that they simply cannot even be considered for such path-breaking, nation-building tasks

Anmalies by Successive pay Commission

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

SCPC: Anomalies Aggregated by Successive Pay Commissions to Dupe the Defence Forces
Ex-Servicemen Being Denied their Rightful PensionsThere are three glaring omissions by the Ministry of Defence which affect a vast majority of Ex-Servicemen and others, which the Ministry is not prepared to listen.. Since these are detrimental to defence personnel and our representations to the all in the channel including our Hon’ble President the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces has not yielded any results, we have been compelled to air it through you to public so that they may know as to what treatment is being meted to the Defence Forces who give the best years of their life in service and security of the Nation and progressive development wherever called for and now even their genuine grievances are not being redressed.The three points are as follows:1. The 4th CPC granted Military Service Pay, called Rank Pay, over and above the normal Pay, for the peculiar Service conditions of Armed Forces and admitted in Govt. Resolution dated 13.3.87. To deny this extra payment to officers of defense forces, the financial experts of the Defense Ministry reduced the Basic Pay of all officers equivalent to the Rank Pay, and reflected Rank Pay separately in an additional column of the pay slips showing that the Rank Pay there as sanctioned by the Government and 4th CPC award was paid, though actually nothing extra was paid. The above discrepancy when raised by an officer with the MOD was not accepted by the authorities resulting in his filing a Writ in the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in 1995, who held the deduction as incorrect, which was later ratified by the full bench of the Court on appeal by the UOI vide their Judgment orders dated 05.10.1998 & 04.7.2003. The SLP filed was also rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide their order of 12.7.2005. Accordingly the officer who filed the case was paid the amount deducted from his Basic Pay The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala had declared Para 6 of MOD Instructions dated 26.5.1987, as invalid which was introduced without any substance or support, and thus annulled. The said MOD Instruction of 26 May 1987 should have been amended accordingly immediately after the final Judgment and benefit given to all others affected due to the said clause. The MOD did not correct this anomaly in violation of the rulings of the Honorable Supreme Court (AIR 1975-SC 538) and Article 14 of the Constitution. Writs filed by individual officers are others are pending in Supreme Court for decision but if the MOD amends their earlier wrong instructions, as ordered by the Kerala High Court, the case gets automatically solved and they can pay to all as required.2. In addition to the above facts the Vth Pay Commission granted certain concessions to Armed Forces in their recommendations while allowing those concessions to the Civilian Counter Parts, which have been accepted and implemented in civil but the corresponding benefits have not been given to the Defence Forces because our financial Pundits did not bother to read those recommendations or purposely ignored them. There were ten such anomalies- giving 30% Disability Pay for 100% disability, weightage of two to three years for service from 30 to 33 years, using only Rank instead of Rank/ Post reducing pension of those who were serving in higher posts etc., the benefit of which should have been given to defence forces during the period but was denied. The Rank Pay sanctioned by the 4th CPC got doubled in 5th CPC which resulted in double loss as the Basic Pay got further reduced.3. This reduced Basic Pay was given to the 6th CPC without telling them as to how it had been deduced by the Ministry of Defence as Armed Forces had no access to the 6th Pay Commission. Lower Basic Pay resulted in their classification into lower scales of pay and lower Grade Pay and correspondingly lowering their status in comparison to their civilian counterparts in other Deptts where they always enjoyed an edge over other services. On protests the MOD tried to increase Grade Pay etc or give benefits here and there, but did not rectify the basic cause of not giving Rank Pay, which they deducted from Basic Pay. It is still hanging fire and the problem cannot be resolved unless basic data is changed. Secondly in implementing the 6th CPC awards, the MOD made the instructions so complicated that some of the Ex-Servicemen are yet to get their revised pension and 40% arears which they were supposed to get in Jan 2009 and are finding difficult to pay income Tax without proprer figures which some of the banks, especially the branches where instructions have not yet reached, are still working. Moreover the 6th CPC has nowhere said about the minimum of the new scale but while working out the pay of regular serving officers has talked about the minimum of the grade in the new scale. If we work out with minimum of the new scale and minimum of the new Grade there is difference of Rs.600/- for PBOR to about Rs. 4000/- for officers, which practically nullifies the effect of MSP, the same way as they nullified the effect of payment of Rank Pay ealier during 4th and 5th CPC. The supreme Court of India passed their Judgment more than three months back on the Pay Fixation of officers of the Rank of Maj Generals but it has not been implemented so far which is a matter of concern as they did not implement the Kerala High Court Judgment earlier. In both the cases it is a matter of contempt of the courts.Similarly, the Prime Minister, approved the up gradation of Lt Colonels from PB-III to PB-IV. It is more than two months now but no action has been taken. It should not be allowed to be swept under the carpet or put in cold storage, or the dust bin.Same is the case of PBORs where their pension at the time of retirement used to be 50% of the Pay they drew at the maximum of the scale in which they were working at the time of retirement but 6th CPC reduced it to 50% of the mean of pay the individual was drawing at the time of retirement for the last ten months. It became much less that earlier on the basis of wrong data fed to the commission and the authorities, it is learnt, on protest, agreed to raise pension from 50% to 70%. Though considerable time has elapsed, no orders have been received on the subject. Since it financially affects all PBORs it needs to be implemented soon. ‘One Rank One Pension’ case is already boiling and needs immediate attention and we the ex-Servicemen of Dehradun fully support ESM at Delhi.This has serious implications for the morale of both serving and retired Defence Personnel. The Nation cannot comtinue to treat the prime disciplined segment of society with contempt. What is the just due of theArmed Forces must be given immediately.Brig K G Behl Veteran President Dehtadun Ex-Services League
Posted by SIGNAL on Tuesday, April 14, 2009