Forebodings of an emergency

BRP Bhaskar

Gulf Today

Veteran Bharatiya Janata Party leader Lal Krishna Advani created a minor sensation last week by hinting at the possibility of another spell of Emergency in India. Forces wanting to crush democracy are strong and there aren’t enough safeguards to prevent an Emergency-like situation, he said.

Advani, who was Deputy Prime Minister in the first BJP-led government, is the seniormost among the old guard whom Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sidelined. His veiled warning came just days ahead of the 40th anniversary of Indira Gandhi’s Emergency, when the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution remained suspended.

As it happened, as Advani spoke Modi was coping with the worst crisis since he took office in May last year with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje Scindia facing allegations of helping controversial cricket entrepreneur Lalit Modi (no kin of the Prime Minister) who is abroad and evading prosecution on money laundering charges.

Delhi’s Aam Aadmi Party Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is involved in a running battle with the Modi government, endorsed Advani’s assessment, and sought to portray himself as an early victim of the coming Emergency. Rashtriya Janata Dal chief and former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad said there was already an undeclared Emergency, with “authoritarian and Hitlerian tendencies prevailing in the country”.

The Congress did not comment on Advani’s reference to the Emergency but demanded the resignation of Sushma Swaraj and Vasundhara Raje Scindia.

Advani quickly toned down his remarks to spare the party embarrassment. He claimed the reference was to the Congress government’s Emergency rule of 1975-77.

When a reporter suggested that it might be taken as a message to Modi, Sonia Gandhi or Kejriwal, Advani said that would be a wrong interpretation. “I am not referring to any individual but to a fact that the fear of losing power can breed authoritarian tendencies.”

His explanation did not remove the suspicion that Narendra Modi was very much on his mind. “When you enter politics you get enormous authority and power. But my generation of politicians believed in humility, the kind of humility that (first BJP Prime Minister Atal Behari) Vajpayee practised,” he said. “Those who can’t be humble can’t serve the country.”

Sushma Swaraj is the only Advani protégé to get a respectable place in the Modi government. When media reports that she had helped Lalit Modi, who was in England, to travel to Portugal where his wife was undergoing treatment surfaced, she said she had acted on humanitarian considerations. Two facts cast doubts on that explanation. One is that her daughter was Lalit Modi’s counsel. The other is that she kept the Foreign Secretary in the dark about her intervention.

The Prime Minister and the other senior ministers initially remained silent. Then it came to light that Vasundhara Raje Scindia had earlier helped Lalit Modi on condition that her role will not be made public. Thereafter the party closed ranks behind Swaraj and Scindia.

While the damage has been contained the claim that the Modi establishment is scam-free has been breached. The issue may come back to haunt the government when Parliament reassembles.

There have been other developments which are forebodings of an Emergency. Attempts are on to strangle non-government organisations which are exposing human rights violations by starving them of funds.

Among the NGOs targeted by the government are two groups led by Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand whose dedicated efforts led to prosecutions in connection with some of the killings which took place in Gujarat when Modi was the Chief Minister and the India chapter of Greenpeace which has been spearheading campaigns against some mega projects which threaten the livelihood of thousands of poor villagers.

New rules framed by the government require NGOs who receive funds from abroad to undertake not to use the money for activities that are against “national public, security, strategic, scientific or economic interest” – terms broad enough to cover every human rights activity. They also enjoin upon banks to inform the government within 48 hours of every transaction made by the NGOs.

The regulations will cripple about 30,000 groups which are trying to protect the environment and defend human rights. Already the government has cancelled the licences of 13,345 NGOs.

The government has refused the Central Bureau of Investigation permission to prosecute Central and Gujarat state police officials involved in fake encounter killings.

There is a critical difference between Indira Gandhi’s Emergency and Modi’s undeclared one. The former was directed against the political opposition. The latter is targeted against civil society. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, June 23, 2015.

Civil Society activists endorse Shinde's statement on Hindutva terror

A host of civil society activists have come out in defence of Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde's statement on the terror links of Hindutva organizations and called for effective action against communal elements.

The following is a statement issued by Asghar Ali Engineer, Mahesh Bhatt, Praful Bidwai, Sandeep Pandey and others:

We the undersigned are concerned by the developments in Andhra Pradesh following the alleged hate speech by Mr. Akberuddin Owaisi recently. Many groups and organisations including many of the undersigned had condemned the speech and demanded action and also against members of some Hindutva organisations who were engaging in similar activities.

There were many instances of hate speeches and communal instigations by leaders and members of different communities in the past but the government had failed to take appropriate action in time and thereby encouraged such behavior by these divisive groups.

Even in the present case of the speech by Mr. Akberuddin Owaise, the government did not act immediately and when it did act, a number of Sections including a very grave charge under Sec.121 that deals with sedition against the state and can result in death penalty or life imprisonment were booked against him.  It is unwarranted to charge him under such very serious sections. Further, Mr. Asaduddin Owaisi, MP, has also been arrested in an old case dating from 2005 and his bail plea has been rejected twice.

The total silence of the government for years in these matters and the sudden action in bringing up old cases and slapping of serious charges, especially in the context of the recent withdrawal of support by MIM to the Congress Government in the State is sending a very wrong message to the people that this is going beyond the requirements of justice and is being influenced by vendetta politics.  The matter becomes more sensitive when they are representatives of the people elected through the democratic process.    

We urge that any action by the government in all such matters should be immediate, impartial and commensurate with the aberration committed, otherwise it will be seen as victimization, spread disenchantment within the affected communities, polarise people and could result in social unrest and violence.

Hence, in the interest of justice and prevention of further polarisation that could have disastrous consequences for social stability and proper inter community relations, we urge the government to desist from any actions that appear vindictive and unjust or directed only against a particular community and undertake all and only such actions that are impartial and appropriate to secure justice. All people, irrespective of the community to which they belong would also welcome and endorse such actions and there would be no danger of any social disenchantment.   

Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer- Mumbai

Mahesh Bhatt- Mumbai

Praful Bidwai- New Delhi

Dr. Mazher Hussain- Hyderabad

Dr. Ram Punyani- Mumbai

Javed Anand- Mumbai

Jeevan kumar- Hyderabad

Dr. Sandeep Panday- Lucknow

Irfan Engineer- Mumbai

Bro. Verghese- Hyderabad

Jatin Desai- Mumbai

M.J. Vijayan- NewDelhi.

The foillowing is a statement issued by Manisha Sethi, Shabnam Hashmi and others:

While one may or may not agree with the terminology employed by the Home Minister in his recent speech at Jaipur, we feel that for long prejudice has ruled investigations, obscuring the role of organizations and their multiple affiliates in planning and executing of attacks and bombings in the country. The veneer of 'nationalism' -- narrow, exclusionary and based on hatred for minorities as it is-- cannot hide the violence that Sangh and its affiliates beget and peddle. 

Civil rights groups have been arguing for long that the investigations into bomb blasts and terror attacks have degenerated into communal witch-hunts. Bomb blasts are followed predictably by mass arrests of Muslim youth, raids in Muslim-dominated localities, detentions, arrests and torture; media trials, charge sheets and prosecution based on custodial confessions and little real evidence. It has been assumed, and accepted widely, that no further proof of guilt need be offered than the fact that the accused belonged to a particular community. Leads which pointed to the hands of groups affiliated to Sangh organisations and their complicity in planning and executing acts of terror were ignored, never seriously pursued. The agencies, showing their abject bias, instead chose to pursue the beaten track of investigating Islamic terrorist organizations such—despite clear evidence pointing in the opposite direction. This was true of Nanded blasts in 2006, as well as of Mecca Masjid and Ajmer Sharif bombings.

The only exception was Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare, who had, as far back as 2008 conclusively brought into the public domain the nefarious designs of Abhinav Bharat and its foot soldiers of hate: (Sadhvi) Pragya Singh of the ABVP, serving army officer Col. Purohit, and Sunil Joshi, Indresh and Swami Aseemanand belonging to the RSS. Karkare had communicated to the Hyderabad Police the sensational claim by Col. Purohit that he had procured RDX from an army inventory when he was posted in Jammu and Kashmir in 2006. The Hyderabad Police however ignored his messages, having already detained close to 70 youth belonging to the Muslim community.

We demand that:

·         Although the Indian government has belatedly acknowledged the heinous terrorist acts of the Sangh groups we feel that a genuine probe must also perforce encompass a thorough enquiry into the terror nexus straddling Abhinav Bharat, RSS, VHP, BJP and Bajrang Dal leaders together with sections of the Indian intelligence and security agencies who deliberately subverted the probes as well as the due process of law.

·       It must also be investigated whether the network of Hindutva terrorists have been provided not just political but also financial and logistical support by various governments

·         There must be a thorough investigation into the foreign sources of funding of the Hindutva organizations.

We hope that the acknowledgement of Hindutva terror will not remain a statement only but that the investigations will be seriously and sincerely pursued. 

Signatories

1.      Manisha Sethi, Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association
2.      Shabnam Hashmi, Act Now for Harmony and Democracy (ANHAD)   
3.      Mahtab Alam, People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL)
4.      Mansi Sharma, Activist, Delhi   
5.      Subhash Gatade, Activist and Author, Godse's Children: Hindutva Terror in India
6.      Rajeev Yadav, Adv. Mohd. Shoaib and Shahnawaz Alam, Rihai Manch, UP
7.      Amit sen Gupta, Senior Journalist, Delhi
8.      Abu Zafar, Journalist, Delhi
9.       Harsh Kapoor, South Asian Citizens Web
10.   Seema Mustafa, Senior Journalist, Delhi
11.  Ram Puniyani, Activist and Author, Mumbai
12.  Sukumar Muralidharan, Senior Journalist
13.  Syed Zafar Mehdi, Journalist
14.  Dr. John Dayal, All India Christian Council

15.  Prof. Kamal Mitra Chenoy, JNU

16.  Navaid Hamid, Member, National Integration Council, GoI

17.  Prof Anuradha Chenoy, JNU

18.  Saba Naqvi, Senior Journalist, Delhi

19.  Wilfred Dcosta, Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF)
20.  Harsh Dobhal, Human Rights Law Network (HRLN)
21.  Kavita Krishnan, All India Progressive Women Association (AIPWA).   

Niloufar Bhagat writes:

 I endorse the statement of the Union Home Minister . The truth is never defamatory, as the organizations resorting to terror did so in the name of Hindutva. It is time a spade is called a spade as it is every day for more than a decade the media and the Sangh Parivar among other organizations and parties have fed us stories about Jehadi and Muslim Terror and continue to do so through the corporate controlled media, and were not sued for defamation when an entire cultural and religious group was being defamed nationally and internationally , yet sweeping generalizations were made . Similar sweeping generalizations were made regarding " Sikh terrorism".

 

 The objective was political diversion .and divide and rule by projecting the Muslims as the real enemy when in fact global financial forces in league with comprador sections of the Indian Corporate Sector closely allied with  the corporate media were controlling the country and camouflaging policies , privatizing several sectors including health care and education and profitable public sector undertakings  , taking over land of the peasantry and the tribal people , among other policies  as a consequence of which financially once again the country is facing a downhill situation as the global recession and collapse of erstwhile financial centers was deliberately camouflaged by more than one political alliance .

 

 Jt. Commissioner of Police Mr. Hemant Karkare with his brilliant investigations exposed the real conspirators and terrorists, who are politically fascists , for which he paid with his life , we need  to honor his memory by an annual national lecture on issues vital to our Republic by  a foundation to be constituted , a fitting memorial .

 

Aseemnanda's Judicial Confessions which were made before a  Judicial Magistrate and cannot be retracted disclose a great deal among other investigations .

 

Mr. Chidambaram was similarly harassed for exposing these forces . We may disagree with these individuals on other issues ,however when they speak up in the country's interest we support them and when they fail to protect the weak and innocent  castes and classes in our society we must condemn them .

 

No organization which uses and misuses the religious card is acting in the interest of the country . This is true of the pre-partition period and true now. It must not be forgotten that the Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League had alliances in Bengal and Sind during the pre-partition period .

 

The real agenda is development , what kind of development and the priorities  ,in terms of people, classes and sectors and the issue of economic , political and social justice for all weaker sections and for society as a whole.

Corruption: AHRC points to foundational weakness of Indian state

The following is a statement issued by the Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong:

Given the primacy of combating corruption to breathe life into the concept of democracy, the anti-corruption movement in India is indeed the country's second movement for freedom. Given the magnitude of the problem, the complex and interlinked inroads corruption has made into all aspects of life in the country, it is not mere lack of interest, political differences and sheer snobbishness of the country's political elite that has united them in opposing more sober proposals, sans 'camps', suggested by the civil society as opposed to the nonsensical draft law proposed by the government. The fact that not a single political party of the world's largest multi-party democracy has supported the civil society initiative against corruption illuminates the lack of morale of at least one of the country's democratic institutions.

The unwelcome reality for the political parties in the country that do not have what they believe in as their 'manifest destiny' to decide everything in India and for Indians, understandably will be bitter, but a refining pill for the country's politicians to swallow. In that, India is also witnessing the defining moment and thus the process of maturing of its democratic framework. Dislike by most parliamentarians about the fact that the parliament they are seated in does not have a writ beyond the collective wisdom of the people who sent their representatives to the legislative house is understandable. Nor can they act according to the will of the people, since should there be a strict anti-corruption framework in the country, a substantial number of the country's parliamentarians would find their abode being shifted from their palatial houses within their fiefdoms into the narrow rooms within prisons. Disgust upon the public appeal for a 'biting' law against corruption by the country's political elite is thus understandable, but they have no other choice.

The civil society's model anti-corruption laws, or the one proposed by the government are indeed not the best legislations out there. Both versions of the future law have scope for improvement, in particular, the one drafted by the government, the weakest and the most recent visible specimen of the disrespectful attempt against the constitutional writ that the government is mandated to protect. However good the legislation is, without a proper implementing framework the law cannot deliver its legislative writ.

Kallipolis will not follow once the law is in place, no matter how well meaning it is. If not at any other time in the past, it is now a moment in the country's history that the members of the India's civil society must put their differences behind and speak in one voice, against corruption and not to make use the public space they enjoy to pass comments about how bad is one form of campaign from the other or how good is a particular proposal as against the others. Comments by some of the leading civil society activists reported through the media paints a disappointing picture of the lack of thematic consensus and confirms the worrying public perception that the human rights movement in India is divided between different camps, some of them formed on the basis of who have received what decoration and who aims for what more in the form of recognitions. In that some of the civil society leaders in the country are not immune to intellectual corruption. The last thing the country can afford now is a 'blue ribbon jury' within the civil society.

There are relatively successful models of anti-corruption frameworks in the world, within Asia itself. The system that is in place, for instance in Hong Kong, is of relatively high efficiency. That a unique territory like Hong Kong is not a true democracy underscores the fact that a parliamentary form of democracy is not required to contain corruption. That there is parliamentary primacy over the acts of the government is more the better though. The Hong Kong model of corruption prevention takes within its sweep non-government entities, including human rights groups and business establishments. The United Nations Convention Against Corruption, AHRC provides a comprehensive theoretical and practical framework against corruption, a model that must be studied by anyone who is serious of fighting corruption. Unlike all other international conventions the UN has produced, the Convention against Corruption provides an extensive implementation framework.

Equally important is the government's effort to maximise wider consultancy in the process. Engaging in consultations with a single individual is not what is warranted under the circumstances. A consultative process is not the government's prerogative to offer, but a citizen's right to be fulfilled.

For now the government and the non-government groups have had their chances to take their shots at the target. The question then is what next?

Assuming that eventually there would be a law in India against corruption, probably the best of its kind in the world, without drastic reforms of the justice institutions it would be like owning a radio without means to electricity. Of the manifold problems that India face today, arguably, corruption would be one in the 'top-ten' list. Of equal importance is the non-functioning justice apparatus. However, the country's civil society is yet to wake up to this reality or is pretending to sleep over this issue.

The potent evil in India is not the façade made up of some of the reckless and globalised business interests, but the foundational weakness of a state, that still lacks the understanding of and refuses to accept that its justice regime has stopped growing and has instead started putrefying. Without incorporating debates concerning the urgent requirement for a complete overhaul of India's justice framework, corruption will continue to flourish in India, no matter what law is eventually legislated.
--------
Cartoon provided by Mr. Satish Acharya. The cartoonist's page could be viewed at http://cartoonistsatish.blogspot.com/

Consultation is the quintessence of democracy, says AHRC

The following is a statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission:

The recent statement by the Human Resource Development Minister, Mr. Kapil Sibal, expressing concern over the process of wider consultation in the drafting of the anti-corruption law, the Lokpal Bill, calls for reflection and debate. The Minister has said that the government would not in the future consider involving the civil society for drafting legislations. The Minister's view against a wider consultative process also found support within the Congress Working Committee (CWC. The CWC in a meeting held on 24 July has said that the government felt as if it was held at ransom by a section of the civil society in the country concerning the Lokpal Bill. Not surprisingly other political parties in the country also hold a similar view on the issue.

The overwhelming public support the NGO representatives who lead the movement against corruption in India receives indicate how badly the general public sought for a vent to air their opinion against corruption. It is elementary that the general public uses the new platform to speak against manifest forms of corruption, that has reduced the country's government into a quagmire of institutionalised corruption. On a global index, year after year, India shares a shameful position among some of the worst corrupt places in the world. The political parties that held fort in New Delhi and at the state capitals thus far have done nothing decisive to bring a change into this unacceptable status quo. In such a circumstance when someone has come forward seeking the government's intervention to address the issue and that many have willingly joined the call is neither surprising, nor can a government, honest to its constitutional mandate, ignore such a call.

It is understandable that the government feels the pressure. It is commonsense that the pressure felt by the government is just not because some of the leading public figures are pushing the government to act sensibly, but because there is an unprecedented mass appeal for the call to act against corruption which translates into votes if it is construed within a myopic vision of vote-bank politics, which unfortunately many Indian political parties are only capable of today. To look at the mass support that the movement against corruption has garnished as mere 'holding a government at ransom' is an act of deceit which translates into what is being promised is different from what is planed to be implemented.

The most important question of the day is not which offices will come under the scrutiny of the law in the anvil, but to what extent is the government willing to pay heed to public demand. The very notion that the Indian parliament or the bureaucrats that serve the government have better wisdom that the people who elected them is sheer snobbishness, that no government worthy of the constitutional mandate that elected them to power can afford to propose. In fact contrary to what has been said, the procedure that the government was forced to follow regarding the Lokpal Bill is in fact not just the precedent, but the law and it has been the practice. Mr. Kapil Sibal being a lawyer should know that before Bills are tabled in the parliament, the respective ministry that sponsores the Bill calls for public opinions about the proposed law. It is just that in the past occasions the public were not been properly informed of such process or they did not have a vehicle to carry their opinions to the legislature than through their representatives in the parliament. Concerning the Lokpal Bill, they had an organised civil society that played this role, rather effectively. It is not surprising that the persons who pushed the same government to bring about a law that guarantees a right to be informed are also behind the Lokpal Bill.

But for the government to view this participatory approach as unacceptable implies that many in India, at least some politicians and parliamentarians, are yet to understand and appreciate what true democracy implies.

As the old Japanese proverb goes, when important decisions are made, it is better to form it after wide consultations. The process is not Western, as some members of the Bharatiya Janata Party has said seizing the opportunity to attack the president of the Indian National Congress. Administration through consultation is very much Asian. In that, the procedure the civil society has forced the government to follow thus far concerning the Lokpal Bill is the quintessence of democracy.

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Understanding Civil Society action in the Binayak Sen case

By Ilina Sen
freebinayaksen.org

The case of Binayak Sen ( by this I mean the legal case as well as the whole body of civil society reaction across national and social boundaries) is in many ways a landmark in Indian jurisprudence. Apart from the personal pain and agony that I have gone through, in being witness to Binayak’s uncalled for incarceration and unjust conviction, the case has also intellectually challenged me along with many other citizens of my country and forced so many of us to look critically at the laws and statutes that govern our lives.

It has brought into the limelight the outdated provisions of the sedition law in India, and today our Law minister has gone on record as saying that this law needs urgent revision if not scrapping, in keeping with the spirit of the times. Many of us who are not legal professionals have looked into our statute books and discovered horror chambers in sections penalizing thought / action against ‘any Asiatic Power’ in alliance with the government of India. This particular statute obviously dates from the time when the British crown and the crown in Moscow were locked into the ‘great game’ over the control of Afghanistan, and reminds us that the Afghan people have been pawned in many games but that no game player has historically succeeded in selling them down the river.

We have also been forced to look at the way our lower courts function – at the way the police and the prosecution work in tandem, at the way in which the established law of evidence is disregared, at bizarre new interpretations of established legal interpretations and positions. One’s mind begins to form a sneaking question whether the mandate of the court at this level is to support the police in keeping anyone labeled as guilty in custody for some years, and leave the finer points of the law of the land to higher courts of appeal.

One has seen countless cases of miscarriage of justice as well as the horrendous conditions in Indian jails at first hand.

However, Binayak’s case also stands as an example where the people of the world have stood up and said to governments ( their own as well those of their neighbours) that the state cannot get away with heavy handed authoritarianism and have the people accept that lying down. Ordinary citizens are never lawless people and appreciate the fact systems and legal structures keep us safe, yet when these same laws become instruments of injustice rather than justice , we all feel it is time for us to stand up and make our concern felt. Civilized democratic societies and established political structures are all products of a social contract between the people and the structures of governance, with the ultimate power resting in the will of the people. Here we have seen how in city after city – In India, Asia, Europe, Australia and America- people have stood up and said that is unacceptable for governments to exercise the power we give them in this way. I see this as a step in the re negotiation of the social and political contacts of governance, of which there are many other manifestations in our times. For me this has been the most important learning, the most important outcome of the case.

Binayak joins me in greeting all of you, many friends whom we have met, and many others whom we have not, yet who are together with us in a spirit of common good.

Sent for presentation at the UK Seminar on “‘Dr Binayak Sen and the use of ‘Sedition’ Laws to Persecute Human Rights Activists in India” on May 14, 2011.

Civil Society rejects World Bank action plan for Orissa

The following is a Press Release from the Focus Orissa Forum on Climate Change, forwarded by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Hong Kong:

The draft Climate Change Action Plan of Orissa (CCAP) prepared at the aegis of the World Bank and DFID does not consider the concern and interest of common odia, neither reflect state’s seriousness towards self-discipline, sobriety and adaptation, rather vociferously reiterates its nexus with neo-liberal lobby which propounds reckless industrialization and unwarranted investment. Notwithstanding the fact that its citizens are either the victims of Climate Change or are the vulnerable lot at coast and the hills, in spite of living a low-emission or net-absorption livelihoods, the authors of the document treat them as the Climate Criminals while allowing the criminals to expand and multiply their crimes. With its focus on promoting investment-intensive mitigation measures as a tool to encourage state’s ongoing unabated industrialization drive, it looks more as an “Inv estment Plan for Industrialization and Mitigation’ offering almost nothing for state’s farmers, fishers, forest-produce gatherers.

Orissa government’s Draft Climate Change Action Plan with a huge budget of Rs. 17,000 crore seeks to help industries more by reducing their expenditure on adapting to climate change, while providing hardly any budget for the victims of climate change at Saatabhayaa, around Talcher and Jharsuguda. It proposes a 15 fold increase in the capacity of thermal power plants at the guise of improvement technology which alone could lead to at least thirteen times higher levels of emission of heat and pollution. One can imagine the hazards that already boiling Talcher and Jharsuguda will face in this scenario. A budget of Rs. 5,500 crore is made for reducing transmission and distribution losses which is only going to help private energy companies sell more electricity and make more money. On the contrary allocation of mere Rs. 4 crore for the establishment of biogas plants can support only about 5000 biogas plants, which is even insufficient for one block.

There is hardly any money allocated for developing small and micro level irrigation facilities or in providing adaptive seeds to farmers. There is no allocation for increasing the supply of electricity to farmers. On the other hand the government has planned for enhancing the fees for irrigation. Over the last ten years, the government has kept on increasing the fees it collects from farmers for supplying irrigation water to them, while allowing industries to use increasing quantities of water, often without formal permission and from sources earmarked for irrigation purposes, without having to pay much.

The plan has more than Rs. 3,000 crore for the forest department, while the villagers who have sacrificed so much to protect their forests under community forest management /joint forest management have been allocated nothing but a small amount of five crore rupees for training purposes. In transport sector, 80% of the allocated budget for this sector is for highways while there is no budget for rail or for promoting the use of non-motorised transport such as bicycles.

Two of the most critical areas climate change impacts are falling production in agriculture, livestock & fishery; and increasing health hazards due to heat related illnesses and accidents. There is no budget under the action plan for something as obvious and basic as preventing and treating heat strokes. The livestock sector is seen by the government less as a victim of climate change and more as a producer of methane. The climate change action plan accuses the farmers of Orissa of not killing old and unproductive cattle due to religious cultural reasons and that this leads to large methane emissions.

An overall reading of the Orissa climate change action plan leads to the following conclusions:

1. It’s a hurriedly drafted document ghost-written by the World Bank and other External Agencies.

2. Notwithstanding the importance and implication of the document, the process of preparation of draft document has not been inclusive. There has been no involvement of civil society and other non-government stakeholders including academia, researchers, legislatures, PRIs, NGOs and the important climate refugees and vulnerable communities from different parts of the state in the drafting processes. Even the comments and suggestions provided by some of these stakeholders who were invited to the hurriedly called 4 stakeholder consultations have been ignored and not incorporated.

3. It treats Orissa as a cause of climate change while Orissa is actually a victim of climate change. Naturally it wants to impose the price of reducing emission of green house gases on the ordinary people of Orissa, who lives either low-emission or net-carbon-absorption livelihoods.

4. In spite of the heat wave conditions that have killed thousands of people in Orissa, the Action Plan seeks to ratify the setting up of large numbers of new thermal power plans which will lead to at least thirteen times growth in emissions and pollutions, thus would risk temperature increase.

5. It accepts that climate change is going to cause erratic monsoons and increased incidence of droughts and reduce agricultural production. However it proposes not increasing irrigation coverage but increase in water tariff collected from farmers.

6. It blames the people of Orissa keeping their old cows and bullocks and encourages that they should allow such animals to die.

7. It pays only lip service to the issue of renewable energy such as biogas or solar powers and allocates very small budgets for these areas. On the other hand it allocates large amounts of public money to help electricity companies increase profits by reducing transmission losses.

8. It tries to peddle false assumptions that bio-fuels will lead to lower carbon emissions. Bio-fuels can only lead to saving in petroleum use but not reduce carbon emissions as when bio-fuels are burnt, that too released green house gases. It encourages the diversion of land to growing bio-fuels which will lead to reduction in the availability of food and fodder.

9. It pays lip service to development of public transport, railways and non-motorised transport. But it does not allocate any budgets for these while allocating 80% of the transport sector budget for highways.

10. It ignores the contribution of community forest management in protecting and developing Orissa’ forests and allocates no budget for helping villages that are protecting their forests to gain access to alternate livelihoods and alternate fuel sources.

11. It pays only lip service to preventing and curing the health impacts of increasing temperatures and makes no budget allocation for preventing or treating heat strokes in spite of thousands of people having died due to heat strokes in the last few years.

It is important that the government have a genuine participatory process where academics, people currently affected severely by climate change, other people under threat of climate change impact, experienced bureaucrats, civil society organisations, people’s representatives debate on the issue of impact of climate change on Orissa in a decentralized manner from below. The principal approach should be to ensure that the state has systems to generate resources from global funds as well as in judiciously directing its own resources for fighting climate change and its impacts. Such resources should be used to reduce the impact of climate change on the people of Orissa, especially the people who are more vulnerable and unable to adapt without external support. It is important that the state should ponder over its industrialization and extractive development trajectory and comes out with a policy based on self discipline, sobriety and temperance in resource use. This draft sh ould be rejected altogether and a new decentralized, inclusive process be initiated from below with multistakeholders participation with a spirit of Odia nationalism rather than under the influence of the World Bank.

Focus Orissa Forum on Climate Change
Sudarshan Chhotoray
Dr.S.N.Patro
Achyut Das
Biswajit Mohanty
Bibhudhendra P Das
Dr. J.Panigrahi
Dhirendra Panda
Pranb Choudhury
Manas Ranjan
Kalish Das
Tapan Padhi
Pravat Sutar
Prasant Mohanty
Mangaraj Panda
Bisikesan Jani
Ranjan Panda
Bibekananda Pattanaik
Bidyut Mohanty
Pradip Pradhan

Civil Society demands food security for all

A number of human rights activists working on right to food issues in fourteen districts gathered in Jaipur on November 9 to discuss the current food insecurity as well as the upcoming enactment of the National Food Security Act.

Most of the participants raised questions about the malfunction of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) ensuring the right to work and right to food due to the underpayment or delayed payment practised by corrupt officials. Moreover, they pointed out that the earmarked payment Rs.100 a day is not enough to manage three meals a day due to soaring food prices. Furthermore, the 100 days-employment is also insufficient since the drought, particularly this year in Rajasthan, has been affecting food security in the village resulting in less harvest and therefore less employment.

In Barmer district, the villagers started selling their job cards issued under NREGA to others. The Job card holders rather decide to migrate to other states, such as Punjab or Gujarat to seek longer employment with better payment. Many of job card holders are less paid than 100 rupees and do not get the full-100 days of employment, which is prevalent in the areas in which the NREGA was launched.

Under the Public Food Distribution System (PDS), the wheat is distributed to the BPL families raging from 10 kilograms (Rajsamand district for instance) to 28 kilograms, which is less than the 35 kilograms earmarked by the state government.

It is said that 278 districts across India have been struck by the worst drought this year. Rajasthan, known as a dessert area, has been affected worse than other states. Despite the fact that most of the districts suffer from drought, the government has till not taken any action. According to the order which resulted from the drought in 2001-02, the district collector has an obligation to have a monthly meeting to discuss counter plans and open the water tank. In addition to the 100 days-employment under the NREGA, the villagers are entitled to get 10 days more during the drought. However, it has been suggested that the government should provide unlimited employment to the villagers during the drought.

The villagers in rural areas who are deprived of the right to work suffer from lack of livelihood and have no choice but to migrate to the city or other states in order to feed their families. The corruption practised by public servants has been leading a failure of the implementation of the government policy on the right to work, which results in constant migration. The migration this year has been promoted by the worsening drought. In addition, it is even more difficult for the migrant family to get benefits from the government services ensuring their rights.

In the context of the worsening status in food security, the civil society groups are complaining against the proposed National Food Security Act which merely ensures the provision of 25 kilograms of food grains to every Below the Poverty Line (BPL) family at three rupees. The groups are concerned that the government may delay its enactment and fulfilment of the National Food Security Act and are demanding immediate guarantees on access to safe and adequate food in various aspects to which the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) also gives its support. The civil society groups will have a rally in Delhi on November 26 to call for the enactment of the National Food Security Act and reflect their demands as below.

1. Enact a Food Entitlements Act immediately

The drought should not be used as an excuse to delay the enactment of a broad based and comprehensive food entitlements act that ensures long term food security for all.

2. Universalise the Public Food Distribution System (PDS)

a. Every resident of this country must be covered by the PDS;
b. Each adult must be entitled to 14 kilograms of cereals per month, along with 1.5 kilograms of pulses and 800 grams of cooking oil;
c. Cereals must include nutritious millets
d. Cereals must be priced at two rupees per kilogram, pulses at 20 rupees and cooking oil at 35 rupees;
e. Decentralise the procurement, storage and distribution of food;
f. Rations cards must be issued in the name of the female head of the household.

3. Follow a "Food First" Policy: Incentivize domestic food production and consumption and revitalize agriculture

a. Stop forcible diversion of land, water and forests from food production. The first call on all natural resources must be for food;
b. No export of food till malnutrition is eradicated;
c. Protect Indian farmers by ensuring no food imports except temporarily during shortages;
d. Fix remunerative prices for food items so that farmers find it viable to produce food;
e. Eliminate the entry of corporate interests and private contractors in food production, the food market and nutrition-related schemes;
f. Immediate moratorium on Genetically Modified (GM) seeds and use of GM food in government food schemes;
g. Ensure access to safe drinking water and sanitation for all.

4. Special protection for excluded and vulnerable groups and in disasters

a. Special protection to vulnerable groups such as the elderly, disabled, female-headed or child-headed households, destitute people, "primitive" and de-notified tribes, urban destitute, etc.;
b. Antyodaya cards which entitle them to PDS items at half the prices of the general population;
c. Additional entitlements such as access to cooked meals, admission for children to residential schools, double quota of all entitlements; one quintal of free food grains etc for them;
d. Pensions at half the statutory minimum wages for the elderly and disabled (ie at an average of around 1,300 rupees per month at the current rate);
e. Special food security policies for migrant workers and urban destitute;
f. Special measures in all emergencies (including starvation and chronic hunger) and natural and man-made disasters.

5. No dilution of Supreme Court orders
The food entitlement act must ensure that legal entitlement and other enabling orders issued by the Supreme Court on the right to food are not diluted in anyway.

6. Put in place an effective grievance redress system

a. Fines and criminal penalties for wrong-doers and compensation for the wronged;
b. Strong in-built transparency mechanism, and mandatory social audits;
c. Accountability must be fixed at all levels.

7. Affirmative action towards people who are socially discriminated

a. At least 50% of jobs for cooks and helpers must be for Dalits, Adivasis (tribes) and members of the minority community;
b. Priority to Dalit, Adivasi and minority community hamlets in the location of Anganwadis (child care centre) and ration shops.

8. Immediate action on hunger, drought and violations

a. Every adult should get employment on demand. NREGA works should be implemented in drought stricken regions without a cap on the number of days. After the commencement of NREGA, public works need to be converged with NREGA, rather than creating a separate machinery and set of rules for relief works;
b. Wages should be fixed at 20% above the state's Statutory Minimum Wage. The current wage freeze must be immediately lifted;
c. Raise PDS entitlement by 50%;
d. Immediate supply of food, water and fodder to alleviate hunger and suffering in the 278 drought and cyclone-affected districts;
e. Mid Day Meals Scheme to all out of school children and MDM should continue during vacations;
f. Ensure full coverage under Antyodaya of all primitive tribal groups, disabled, aged, and other vulnerable groups;
g. Government must immediately redress of complaints of violation of Right to Food Orders and NREGA.

Mr. Ashok, an advisor of the Supreme Court Commission on the right to food, who attended the meeting, explained that the universalization of the PDS to all citizens excluding certain groups like government officials, aims to provide subsidised food grains to all BPL families amounting for more than 70 percent of the total population, whereas the current PDS cover about 35% of the population. He also emphasized that the universalisation to all can reduce the possibility of corruption.

The Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong, which distributed the above report on the Jaipur meeting adds, “The AHRC has been observing the deep-rooted corruption in all government services ensuring people's rights particularly relating to right to food for years by reporting Hunger Alerts. However, further action is required to set up the mechanism to punish corruption which deprives persons of food security”.

ALRC criticizes India’s opposition to civil society participation in international fora

The following is a statement issued by the Asian Legal Resource Centre, Hong Kong:

The deliberations of senior Indian politicians during the National Integration Council Meeting held in New Delhi on 13 October contradict India's positions in international forums like the UN. The council of ministers who met in New Delhi this week resolved that the country will protect, at all costs, the foundations of secularism, equality, social, economic and political justice and fraternity among all communities. The meeting was held in the context of increasing violent incidents of religious and caste intolerance in India.

The above cited statement contradicts the view expressed by the Indian Government’s delegation at the UN. In a recent meeting held at the UN, India opposed the participation of national and international NGOs working against racial and other contemporary forms of discrimination. This includes caste-based discrimination in the forthcoming Durban Review Conference.

During the PrepCom meetings for the Durban Review Conference held in Geneva between 6-17 October, the Indian delegation vehemently opposed the accreditation of national human rights organisations like the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR), Swadikar and the international advocacy group the International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN).

India's opposition was on the grounds that caste-based discrimination does not fall under the scope of the International Convention against Racial Discrimination (CERD.) The activities of the organisations, therefore, do not fall under the objectives of the Durban Review Conference as such. India ratified the CERD on 3 December 1968. This means that India is bound by the treaty obligation to prevent all forms of racial discrimination, both domestically and internationally. Ratification of the treaty also means that India is bound to promote the scope of the operation of the treaty and the further development of the jurisprudence associated with the treaty.

One such document that affirms that caste discrimination falls under the scope of the term 'descent' mentioned in Article 1(1) of the CERD is General Recommendation 29 issued by the CERD Committee in 2002. The General Recommendation categorically states "that discrimination based on 'descent' includes discrimination against members of communities based on forms of social stratification such as caste [emphasis added] and analogous systems of inherited status which nullify or impair their equal enjoyment of human rights...." The full text of the General Recommendation is available here. This position has been reaffirmed several times by the Committee, the latest being an examination of India in 2007, and report by the Special Rapporteur on racism.

The opposition to accrediting NGOs working on caste-based discrimination contravenes the voluntary pledge made by the country promising the promotion, protection and fulfilment of human rights and human values. The pledge was made during India's contest to the UN Human Rights Council. Of specific relevance in this context is the part where India reiterates that it "will continue to encourage efforts by civil society seeking to protect and promote human rights." A complete text of the pledge is available here.

The opposition however did not succeed. The NCDHR, Swadikar and the IDSN were accredited in the PrepCom session with support from the EU spearheaded by the French delegation. France, on behalf of the EU, argued that this form of discrimination does fall under the objectives of the Durban Review Conference. NGOs working on these issues should not be excluded on these grounds. One delegation even mentioned that this would be “discriminatory” and “against the spirit of the Durban Review Conference”. Several other states called for broad civil society participation. The discussion was broadcast live by the UN, of which a summarised text of the discussion is available here.

During the discussions in this meeting, India claimed that it is willing to engage in discussions with members of the civil society at home concerning issues that must be discussed during the Durban Review Conference. However, according to information at the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), no such consultations to date have not been formally organised by the Indian government. There has been no invitation to mainstream NGOs, working on caste-based and other contemporary forms of discrimination, to present their views in preparation for the Durban Review Conference.

India's lack of interest in fostering international human rights mechanisms is further exposed by it’s refraining from promoting universally accepted norms at the domestic level. India has thus far not extended an open invitation to any of the mandate holders under the UN special procedure mechanisms. They have not responded to the questions put forward by the CERD Committee following the examination of India's report in 2007, as otherwise required. This fact adds more credibility to the argument that India, like some other poorly performing member states in the UN uses international human rights mechanisms only for short-term political gains and discreditation of opposing states.

India desperately tries to portray an image of a state that promotes pluralism, equality and fraternity. In comparison to its immediate neighbours, like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, China and Afghanistan, India might be ahead on many fronts. However, the perpetual curse of India, from which most of its inequalities and double standards emanate, is the practice of caste.
A society that has its roots embedded in a caste system cannot easily move forward in ensuring democratic values. The meaning of democracy does not begin or end with an election - the concept of democracy implies much more. A caste system, on the other hand, is not only an impediment to democratic values but is also the legitimisation of inequality shrouded with religion. The mere signing of a human rights document or the making of pledges promising the protection and promotion of human values are of no use in ending discriminatory practices.

What India requires is a strong political will to neutralise this 3000 year-old inhuman practice. But this is what India clearly lacks. Opposing participation by the civil society in discussion forums is most certainly not the way to go forward.

# # #
About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organization holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organization of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.

AHRC stresses Indian civil society’s moral and legal duty to help Myanmar

The following is the text of a statement issued by the Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong

Cyclone Nargis that devastated Myanmar is likely to claim more lives than what was lost during the 2004 Asian tsunami. The tsunami, widely known in the scientific community as the Great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, has reportedly claimed 224,000 lives. The number however, was the total of the reported deaths from 11 nations with landmasses bordering the Indian Ocean. Whereas, the death toll in cyclone Nargis is from just one country -- Myanmar. According to the scanty but latest reports that come in from Myanmar, it is estimated that more than 200,000 persons are already dead in that country. Trustworthy reports predict that the number is likely to double in the coming days.

While these figures can be disputed for good reasons, the fact remains that the initial death toll that was reported to be just over a few hundred has increased some 400 times in a matter of seven days. When living conditions deteriorate by each hour in the country, the condemnable resistance by the Myanmese administration to accept 'Western' offer for help has also not toned down. The history of the military administration and its intolerance towards any suggestions from the 'West' clearly shows that unless any miracle happen, the aid offered by the 'West' will remain in the tarmacs of neighbouring and Western countries while people continue to die in Myanmar. Every day of this impasse is a shame to humanity.

The recent reactions of the administration in Myanmar however show that the Myanmese administration is more amenable towards the suggestions made by its immediate neighbours like India and China. There are good reasons for the Myanmese administration to be more pliable to the suggestions made by its Asian counterparts. This is mostly because of the 'look the other way policy' these nations entertain regarding rule of law and human rights issues in Myanmar. China and India and a few other 'Asian Club' members are competing with each other to remain in the 'good books' of the Myanmese administration.

This is because all these nations have an eye on exploiting the abundant natural resources in Myanmar. It seems that this interest has become a curse to the people of Myanmar, even at times of dire necessities like the devastation caused by Nargis.
While the reports in the international as well as the national media available across the region about the actual state of affairs in Myanmar are scanty, there is a huge criticism, particularly from the Western nations and the UN agencies about the stubbornness of the Myanmese authorities in refusing to accept help. While the 'West-sponsored' aid and relief is being rejected, those offered by the Asian states were readily accepted by Naypyidaw. Naypyidaw is the new capital of Myanmar, after the administrative capital of the country was moved from Yangoon to Naypyidaw in November 2005.

The lesson to be learned from this experience is for the Asian governments to take further initiatives, primarily to address the immediate human demand for assistance and help of the ordinary people in Myanmar. Medical and other relief operations must be the first priority. The Asian governments like India and China in particular, and their Foreign Ministers, has a moral and legal responsibility to see further ways by which their governments could in fact carryout relief operations within Myanmar on a purely humanitarian mission.

According to reports, it is only the Asian states that have a relatively better access to the Myanmese authorities. The sheer magnitude of the devastation must be the only immediate concern for the Asian states to help Myanmar unconditionally. Since it is the privilege of a few select Asian states to constructively liaise with the Myanmese authorities, these states are obliged to encourage Myanmar to accept all possible humanitarian help. In an equally responsible note the governments that are currently shunted by the Myanmese administration must approach the Myanmese administration directly or through other 'acceptable' states for the administration, with a view to help the people in Mynamar without any other political agenda.
An equal responsibility rests upon the human rights organisations and other civil society bodies in India. The civil society in India must urge the Government of India to intensify its engagement in Myanmar. The human rights organisations in India in the past have done so during the 2004 tsunami relief operations.

Private and public sector undertakings in India like those from the large-scale industry sector must not limit their assistance to the people in Myanmar by mere pledges of monetary assistance. These entities must urge the Government of India to spare no resources to provide help to the people in need in Myanmar. The initiatives during the Gujarat earthquake by these organisations must be once again be mobilised with immediate effect to help Myanmar.

Ignorance by the Indian civil society groups about the situation in Myanmar will reflect as a blight to the morality of these organisations and their sensitisation and preparedness to act in dire situations.