Cops train guns on NGOs

BRP Bhaskar

Gulf Today

 

While Prime Minister Narendra Modi maintains his statesmanlike posture the Intelligence Bureau has queered the pitch by leaking a secret report alleging that several non-government organisations are trying to scuttle India’s development at the behest of foreign donors.

It was at the instance of the Manmohan Singh government that the IB began scrutiny of foreign funds’ flow to NGOs. The report which has surfaced, however, is one prepared with Modi in mind.

It includes passages lifted from a speech he had delivered in 2006 while releasing a book on NGOs published by Vigil Public Forum, Chennai, a pro-Sangh Parivar outfit. It looks like a ruse to force the pre-poll Modi to stand up.

Offshoot of a unit set up in England by the colonial regime in 1887, since Independence the IB has performed to the satisfaction of its new masters, earning rewards for its directors in the form of gubernatorial assignments.

There is no executive order or parliamentary enactment which defines the IB’s functions. A public interest litigation questioning its legal authority, filed two years ago, is pending before the Supreme Court.

Unlike the Central Bureau of Investigation and the state police agencies, which are required to produce evidence which will satisfy a court of law, as an intelligence outfit the IB does not have to substantiate its charges. Consequently, its men can tell their political masters what they like to hear.

IB documents are not usually declassified but some of its activities have come to light through autobiographical writings of its former chiefs or through criminal investigations.

For instance, BN Malik, who headed it for 14 years has, in his book My Days with Nehru, provided information on its work in the context of the conflicts with Pakistan and China.

The CBI, which is investigating two fake encounter cases of Gujarat, recently sought the Home Ministry’s permission to prosecute four IB officers. The ministry asked it to produce the case diaries. It refused as courts do not approve of its sharing such documents with others.

One of the first appointments Modi made as prime minister was that of Ajit Kumar Doval, who was IB’s operational chief for a decade and retired as its director in 2005, as the National Security Adviser.

Doval, who thinks lack of a “serious desire to act” is one of the weaknesses of the anti-terror activity, said in a 2008 interview: “We have to get from the defensive mode to the offensive mode. Every hour new ideas need to be generated. It is essentially a game of outsmarting and outwitting. Whoever can think faster and do the unexpected will win the game.”

Praful Bidwai, well-known activist-journalist, wrote that he had discovered during a television debate that Doval belongs to a school of policing that believes that the only way to deal with terrorists, real or imaginary, is to shoot first and ask questions later.

Some insiders appear to have been keen to ensure wide publicity for the report damning NGOs. After its contents leaked to the press, the entire report, complete with the name of the author, SA Rizvi, appeared on the web.

The report alleges that Greenpeace and some US bodies have formed a coal network to take down 455 proposed power stations. It accuses anti-nuclear activist SP Udayakumar of using funds provided by a US university and maps supplied by a German to take down the nuclear programme. It also talks of NGOs’ future plans to take down Gujarat-model economic development projects.

The IB seeks to discredit the protests of the affected people and even the interventions of the Legislature and the Judiciary in project-related matters. It blames foreign funded activism for the protests that stalled the mega industrial projects of the Vedanta group and South Korea’s POSCO and for the restrictions on genetically modified crops recommended by a parliamentary committee and a Supreme Court-appointed expert committee.

Apart from Greenpeace, other reputed organisations like Amnesty International, ActionAid and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties and highly regarded individuals like Vandana Shiva, Suman Sahai and Prashant Bhushan are named in the report.

Civil society groups rejected the allegations as a figment of the IB’s imagination. Udayakumar said he was considering legal action as he and his family had felt threatened after the report was leaked.

Swami Agnivesh, a well-known activist, demanded that Modi ask the IB to substantiate its charges and take action against the persons concerned if they are not able to do so.

The IB’s silence on the foreign funds that Sangh Parivar-promoted NGOs receive and the motives of its donors betrays its political partisanship.--Gulf Today, Sharjah, June 18, 2014.

New phase in land war

BRP Bhaskar

Gulf Today

 

With the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party agreeing to cooperate in the enactment of a new land acquisition law, the government has crossed a major hurdle in the way of its effort to create an industry-friendly environment. However, it is too early for it to rejoice.

The land acquisition law now in force was enacted by the British in 1894. It gives the state the power to seize citizens’ property for public purposes without their consent and casts no responsibility on the state to rehabilitate and resettle the dispossessed.

Invocation of this law, which is inimical to the interests of vulnerable sections of society like the poor and the marginal farmers, has provoked widespread anger and protest in various parts of the country and stalled implementation of many government and private projects.

In September 2011 the government placed before Parliament a draft law which will allow it to acquire property to meet the requirements of state units as well as public private partnerships (PPPs) and private companies. While land owners’ consent is not required when land is acquired for public sector units, acquisition for PPPs and private sector units will require the consent of 70 per cent and 80 per cent of the owners respectively.

A standing committee of Parliament which examined the draft suggested that the government should not acquire land for PPPs and private companies. The government has not accepted the suggestion.

In a bid to meet criticism from the corporate sector and from civil society groups, the government has made some changes in the draft. Some of its provisions are no doubt an improvement on the colonial law. For instance, it provides for a social impact assessment survey before the government notifies its intention to acquire land and for payment of compensation within a specified period. The proposed compensation is four times the market value for property in rural areas and two times in the urban areas.

The draft also contains provisions which can make the position of the poor worse. For instance, it brings mining within the ambit of ‘public purpose’. Many mines are in areas where the tribal population lives. Extension of the measure to these areas will involve violation of the provisions of the Constitution aimed at protecting the tribes and their homelands. 

The draft has a provision which gives the government the power to acquire land temporarily, for a period of three years, without assuming responsibility for rehabilitation and resettlement.  The government has made temporary provisions of many laws permanent features by repeatedly reissuing notifications on the expiry of the time limit.   

At last week’s all-party meeting the BJP pledged support to the proposed measure after the government accepted some of its suggestions.  Land mafia has grabbed vast tracts of land from marginal farmers in recent months, hoping to profit from the liberal compensation formula. The government agreed to the BJP’s demand that if land has changed hands after the bill was introduced in Parliament half of the compensation must be paid to the original landowner. 

The government is keen to put the new law in place to carry forward economic reforms before its five-year term ends next year. While the measure may have a smooth passage in Parliament, its implementation may lead to an intensification of land wars which, in turn, may invite harsh governmental measures, resulting in bloodshed. Determined local opposition to land acquisition has already blocked huge projects of the UK-based Vedanta group and South Korea’s Posco group in Odisha state for several years.

The state government allowed Vedanta to set up a $1.7 billion bauxite mining project in the Niyamgiri hills. The tribal population objected to it, citing its traditional cultural and religious links with the hills. Last week the Supreme Court ruled that the project cannot be allowed to interfere with the tribes’ religious rights. It said the village councils, and not the state, must decide on their claims. 

For seven years the government has not been able to acquire enough land for Posco to set up the world’s largest integrated steel plant. Repressive measures could not subdue the people. Aware of the people’s mood, the company has been reluctant to take over the land acquired so far. -- Gulf Today, April 22, 2013.