Saturday, 3 December 2011

6 दिसंबर 2011, बाबरी मस्जिद विध्वंस की सालगिरह पर साम्प्रदायिकता के खिलाफ काला दिवस मनाएं!

दिसंबर को ‘साम्प्रदायिकता के खिलाफ मार्च’ में शामिल हों ! मण्डी हाउस (१२ बजे से शुरू) से जंतर मंतर!

दोस्तो,

6 दिसंबर का दिन भारतीय लोकतंत्र के लिए काला दिन है. 1992 में इसी दिन साम्प्रदायिक ताकतों और भाजपा नेताओं द्वारा सरेआम बाबरी मस्जिद को तोड़ा गया था- जबकि पुलिस और कांग्रेस-शासित केन्द्र सरकार इस घटना की मूकदर्शक बनी रही थी. पूरे देश में अल्पसंख्यकों को साम्प्रदायिक हिंसा का निशाना बनाया गया था. आज, इस घटना के लगभग दो दशक बाद भी हम 6 दिसंबर को नहीं भूल सकते. आज तक न्याय नहीं मिला है. जांच के लिए बनाए गए लिब्रहान कमीशन ने एल.के. आडवाणी, मुरली मनोहर जोशी, उमा भारती समेत भाजपा के कई नेताओं को इस विध्वंस का दोषी ठहराया है. लेकिन उनके खिलाफ अब तक भी कोई कार्यवाही नहीं हुई और वो खुले घूम रहे हैं.
बाबरी मस्जिद विध्वंस भगवा ताकतों द्वारा एक संगठित राजनीतिक अभियान के तहत फैलाई गई साम्प्रदायिक नफरत का नतीजा था. आज भी वे कई रूपों में साम्प्रदायिक नफरत और हिंसा के संगठित राजनीतिक अभियान योजनाबध्‍द रूप से चल रहे हैं. 2002 में गुजरात में मोदी सरकार द्वारा प्रायोजित दंगे हुए जिनमें हजारों अल्पसंख्यकों को मारा गया. हाल ही में पुलिस के उच्चाधिकारियों ने ऐसे साक्ष्य पेश किए हैं जिनसे ये पता चलता है कि मुख्यमंत्री नरेन्द्र मोदी ने पुलिस को हिंसा का आदेश दिया था. अब मोदी सरकार इन पुलिस अधिकारियों को सच बोलने की सजा दे रही है.
मोदी सरकार को कई नकली एनकांउटर्स का भी दोषी पाया गया है जिनमें मासूम मुसलमान पुरुषों व स्त्रियों की पुलिस ने ठंडे दिमाग से हत्या करके उन पर ‘आतंकवादी’ होने का ठप्पा लगाया गया. हाल ही में गुजरात उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा नियुक्त की गई विशेष जांच टीम ने पाया कि 19 साल की लड़की, इशरत जहां, का एनकाउंटर वास्तव में पुलिस अफसरों द्वारा ठंडे दिमाग से की गई हत्या थी. शर्मनाक तरीके से केन्द्र की कांग्रेस सरकार के गृह मंत्री भी इशरत जहां को न्याय देने की जगह उसे आतंकवादी करार देते रहे. हाल ही में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने भी गुजरात सरकार को सोहराबुद्दीन शेख और उसकी पत्नी शौकत बी के नकली एनकाउंटर में पुलिस अफसरों की भूमिका पर पर्दा डालने की कोशिश का दोषी पाया. मोदी के हाथ खून से रंगे हुए हैं लेकिन भाजपा उसे राष्ट्रीय हीरो के तौर पर स्थापित करने की कोशिश कर रही है.
इस बीच बम धमाकों और आतंकवादी हमलों में संघ परिवार की भूमिका का भी पर्दाफाश हो रहा है. स्वामी असीमानन्द की स्वीकारोक्ति ने ये साबित कर दिया है कि मालेगांव बम धमाके भगवा ताकतों द्वारा अंजाम दिए गए थे. ि‍फर भी उस आतंकवादी कार्यवाही के लिए नौ मासूम मुसलमान युवकों को जेल में टॉर्चर किया गया. अभी हाल ही में जांच एजेंसियों द्वारा ये स्वीकार करने के बाद कि उनके पास इनके खिलाफ कोई सबूत नहीं है, इन्हें जमानत मिल पाई.
मासूम मुस्लिम नौजवानों के खिलाफ झूठे आतंकवादी मामले बना देना बहुत ही आम बात है. दिल्ली में भी कांग्रेस सरकार ने बाटला हाउस ‘एनकाउंटर’ की न्यायिक जांच से इन्कार कर दिया है - हालांकि इस बात के कई संकेत हैं कि ये एक नकली एनकाउंटर था. मालेगांव के अनुभव से हम सबको ये सीखना चाहिए कि आतंकी संदिग्धों के बारे में पुलिसिया संस्करणों से हमें बचना होगा. टॉर्चर से कभी सच्चाई का पता नहीं लगाया जा सकता- अगर हम चाहते हैं कि बम धमाकों के दोषियों को सजा मिले तो ये सुनिश्चित करना होगा कि जांच निष्पक्ष, साक्ष्यों के आधार पर और समाज में अल्पसंख्यकों के खिलाफ व्याप्त हर तरह के साम्प्रदायिक पूर्वाग्रहों से पूरी तरह मुक्त हो.
अपने लोकतंत्र के लिए खतरा बनी हुई इन साम्प्रदायिक ताकतों से कैसे संघर्ष किया जाए? इतिहास ने ये दिखाया है कि धर्मनिरपेक्षता के मामले में कांग्रेस पर भरोसा नहीं किया जा सकता. कांग्रेस ने धर्मनिरपेक्षता को बार-बार धोखा दिया है, यहां तक कि आज भी, ये बाबरी मस्जिद में आडवाणी की भूमिका के लिए उसके खिलाफ कार्यवाही करने में, या दंगों और नकली एनकाउंटरों में मोदी की भूमिका के लिए उसके खिलाफ, या आतंकी कार्यवाहियों के दोषी संघ परिवार के खिलाफ कोई भी कार्यवाही करने में असफल रही है. साम्प्रदायिक ताकतों का प्रतिरोध करने के लिए आम आदमी को आगे आकर मोर्चा संभालना होगा, साम्प्रदायिक राजनीति को नकार कर धर्मनिरपेक्षता और न्याय की मांग करनी होगी.
आइए, 6 दिसंबर 2011 को, हम साम्प्रदायिक हिंसा, नकली एनकाउंटरों और अल्पसंख्यकों को निशाना बनाने के खिलाफ मार्च करें. न्याय और धर्मनिरपेक्षता के लिए अपनी आवाज़ बुलंद करें. अपने संकल्प को दोहराने के लिए आगामी 6 दिसंबर को 12 बजे ‘साम्प्रदायिकता के खिलाफ मार्च’ में शामिल होने के लिए मण्डी हाउस पहुंचें।

निवेदकः
भारत की कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी (माले), दिल्ली राज्य कमेटी

Saturday, 7 May 2011

Nationwide Student-Youth Movement for a Corruption-free Democratic India



                          Pledge

Today, the question of eradicating corruption has emerged as a central imperative to
save the country, its resources and to guarantee employment, well being and basic
rights to the common people.
It has now become the duty of each and every one of us who wants to do something to
save the country from being sold and destroyed to strengthen the movement against
corruption.
In this context, we pledge to fulfil our roles in this fight against corruption.
We pledge to unite the common people against neo-liberal policies of privatisation
facilitating corporate takeover of national resources and corporate loot. We pledge to
unite the common people against institutions and governments responsible for aiding
and abetting corruption and shielding the corrupt.
This fight against corruption can only be won if each one of us becomes a part of this
struggle and pledges to undertake the responsibility of involving more people in this
struggle.
We support the student-youth campaign against corruption and promise to take it to as
many people as possible. We will demonstrate our unity against corruption by reaching
Delhi on 9th August 2011 to strengthen this battle against corruption.

Thursday, 5 May 2011

New Awakening and Confidence in the....



  Battle against Corruption                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                         


Is it a threat to democracy and democratic process for people, through democratic protests, to demand a say in what kind of law a Government introduces? Many critics of the anti-corruption movement that emerged around the fast by Anna Hazare on the Lokpal Bill issue seem to believe so.  

Protest Enriches, Not Undermines Democracy 

The entire movement has been variously branded as ‘blackmail’, as a ‘putsch,’ and as an attempt to subvert ‘democratic process.’ One analyst opined that the fast amounted to ‘blackmail,’ and that demand to include anti-corruption campaigners from civil society in the Lokpal Bill drafting committee was “absurd,” because people cannot be allowed “to dictate policy to a representative process.” According to these critics, it seems that people’s rights in a democracy are confined to the right to elect representatives. Having done so, have they no right to hold those representatives accountable to people’s wishes? Have they no right to ‘dictate’ what kind of policies those elected representatives will make? Must they watch passively while the Radias, Tatas, Ambanis and so on ‘dictate policy’ to elected representatives?!        

It is strange that most critics who accuse the anti-corruption campaigners of arrogating legislative powers to themselves, have seen no threat to democracy in the process whereby Bills (on Right to Food, Right to Education, Right to Information, NREGA and so on) have been drafted by the NAC. Surely the members of the NAC headed by Sonia Gandhi are also ‘civil society’ activists and not elected representatives? If they can draft Bills (which are then debated and passed through due process by Parliament), why can’t non-NAC members of civil society similarly play a role in drafting Bills?

Recently the Allahabad HC has issued a notice to the Government questioning the constitutionality of the Lokpal Bill drafting committee, suggesting that the presence of civil society members amounts to an “extra-constitutional authority.” Such a response is quite strange. The UPA Government has several key projects headed by CEOs – the UID project headed by former Infosys CEO Nandan Nilekani and the NATGRID project headed by Mahindra CEO Raghu Raman, for example (see ‘What’s the ‘Aadhar’ of the UID Scheme, Liberation April 2011). Further these projects are going full steam ahead without any monitoring or green signal from Parliament! On the one hand, such sweeping projects with far-reaching consequences are being carried on in a hush-hush way, headed by CEOs who are not in any way accountable to Parliament. On the other, civil society representatives who have asked for full transparency (they have asked that drafting committee be videotaped and made available to the public) are being accused of violating Parliamentary and constitutional process!           

Critical Engagement Needed

In any democratic movement, however, leaders cannot afford to be sacred cows. Anna Hazare’s remarks in praise of Narendra Modi and Nitish Kumar rightly came in for criticism. He clarified that he was not supporting communal violence, and that his praise was on the limited question of ‘rural development’, and subsequently said that his remarks were based on media reports, and in case he was misinformed, he withdrew his praise.

Even if Anna is concerned with the single issue of corruption, he should know that both Modi and Nitish are in the dock on this question. Modi’s government is implicated in the Sujalam Sufalam scam (Rs.1700 crores); the NREGS Boribund scam (Rs.109 crores), and the Fisheries scam (Rs.600 crores). His claims of employment generation are undercut by the evidence of massive displacement and illegal land grab (see box). Successive CAG reports have implicated the Nitish Government (as well as its predecessor) in massive swindling of public funds and Nitish has blocked even a CBI enquiry as ordered by the High Court. Neither Nitish nor Modi has appointed a Lokayukta in the states ruled by them.
In any case, the question of ‘rural development’ or corruption cannot be divorced from that of democracy. Modi’s government is reviled the world over for having perpetrated a massacre on the minorities; even today, the country’s apex court is hearing cases relating to the Gujarat Government’s and CM’s complicity in the pogrom. Top Gujarat police officers have been held responsible for the fake encounter of Sohrabuddin, alleged to have been done at the behest of marble mafia. For Anna to hand out certificates to such leaders can only erode the credibility of the struggle against corruption. 

Anna Hazare has also remarked that voters in India lack awareness and are ready to be bought. He should remember that it is those same voters who are part of the anti-corruption movement today, and who have time and again shown corrupt governments their place.

Popular Anti-Corruption Mood 

The presence of those from the saffron spectrum – from Baba Ramdev to Ram Madhav – on Anna Hazare’s platform too have caused secular and democratic forces to be uneasy. While the concerns are understandable, it must also be recognised that the movement led by Anna Hazare cannot be conflated with Baba Ramdev’s organisation. Baba Ramdev has been trying to make a political debut as a crusader against black money, building on his popularity as a yoga guru. But in the anti-corruption movement that has emerged, it is quite apparent that Ramdev and his agenda fail to command centre stage. Instead it is the Lokpal Bill (never very prominent in Ramdev’s campaign) that remained the focus. No doubt, the Sangh Parivar forces, failing to command credibility on their own thanks to BJP Governments such as the Karnataka Government being mired in corruption, will try to ride piggyback on the back of the wider anti-corruption agitation. The movement needs to be vigilant about attempts by Ramdev or the RSS to take advantage of it. But the movement as a whole is not stage-managed by the Sangh.

Those dismissing the movement as a Sangh conspiracy or a Congress ploy to defuse anti-corruption anger or a media creation are seriously undermining the prevailing popular mood against corruption. The Anna Hazare-led anti-corruption campaign, as well as 24-hour media channels, tapped into this mood, but certainly did not manufacture it. We should not miss the wood (of people’s new-found determination and confidence to challenge corruption) for the trees (of media hype, ill-advised utterances and ideas of certain leaders, etc).      

This mood was palpable in small towns and big cities alike, and reflected the great anger and outrage of people against the impunity enjoyed by the corrupt. The anger was directed especially at the corrupt in high places, and as a result it did sometimes articulate itself as a rejection of politics and political leaders. Because of this, some have jumped to the conclusion that the participants in this movement were apolitical, careerist types, capable only of candle-light vigils on fashionable issues and liable to melt away if the TV cameras left (or if the police arrived with batons). Such assumptions are quite premature and lack basis. In fact, it seems quite possible that the Government capitulated, anticipating that the ‘jail bharo’ (court arrest) called by Anna Hazare for 13 April might receive an overwhelming response and result in an intensified agitation. 

People’s anger against and rejection of the dominant image of politics (ruling class politics) is quite understandable. To those disillusioned with the ruling class model of politics, we need to reach out with an alternative model of politics. For many thousands of young people, this anti-corruption movement was their first experience of public action, of people’s movement, of politics. Some months earlier, a considerable degree of similar popular awakening could be seen on the Binayak Sen issue too. Those who march against corruption and for a Lokpal Bill today can certainly come to recognise the linkages between their own concerns and Binayak’s and Irom Sharmila’s.

Possibly some leaders of the movement do indeed aim to confine the whole issue of a corruption to a narrow legal framework, relegating the entire agenda of corporate loot and plunder to the background and defusing the explosive potential of mass anger with the healing touch of bourgeois reform and Gandhian agitation. Yet it cannot be denied that the fast did strike a chord with large sections of the people and it did reveal the potential of a popular anti-corruption movement. There is tremendous mass anger on the issue of corruption – both because of the scale and the degree of impunity enjoyed by the corrupt – and the demand for an effective anti-corruption legislation undoubtedly helped mobilise and channelize this anger into various forms of citizen activism across the country. Already, more progressive and radical trends within the movement have begun exploring the possibility of expanding the horizons of the movement beyond just the Lokpal Bill.   

Lokpal Bill and Beyond

It is apparent that the process of drafting a Lokpal Bill too is not likely to be smooth. Already, the Congress, firing from the shoulders of the infamous ‘fixer’ Amar Singh, has launched an underhand smear campaign against drafting committee members Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan.

Other commentators, while appreciating the need for an effective Lokpal legislation and agreeing that the Government draft is toothless, have cautioned against creating a draconian ‘super-cop’ that would endanger democracy. It must certainly be ensured that the Lokpal Bill not only be effective but also transparent and accountable. All concerns regarding democracy and accountability are genuine and must be fully addressed while drafting the Bill. But care must be taken that corruption is not condoned or legitimised as a necessary cost of democracy. A super-cop is not wanted, but an effective and independent cop, accountable to the people rather than beholden to the very people it is meant to prosecute, is certainly needed.   

In a recent article, Prashant Bhushan has pointed out that an effective Lokpal Bill, while an essential tool to fight corruption, is no magic wand. Rather, corruption can be fought only if the policies of privatisation are changed, which create incentives for large-scale corruption by handing over vast tracts of natural resources and monopolies to corporations. The anti-corruption movement, while continuing to struggle for a genuine, effective and accountable Lokpal, must take the struggle forward to challenge the policies that fuel corporate plunder and corruption. That is the way forward!  


(The article above is due to appear in the May 2011 issue of Liberation, the central organ of CPI(ML). Author’s mail id: kavitakrish73@gmail.com)  


Friday, 29 April 2011

RYA AISA march against the witch hunting of UPA government


Explosion of Protest


Nuclear Power Project at Jaitapur
[A team of the All India Left Coordination (AILC) comprising LNP(L) leaders Comrades Bhalchandra Kelkar, Medha Thatte, Prakash Jadhav, Bhanudas Zanzale from Pune, LNP(L) Secretary Bhimrao Bansode, and other LNP(L) leaders Balasaheb Surude, Rajendra Bawake, Vasant More and Comrade Kasbe, Kavita Krishnan, CC member of CPI(ML) Liberation and Radhika Krishnan, environmental researcher and Ph.D student at the Centre of Science Policy in JNU from Delhi visited Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, where people are protesting against the proposed Jaitapur Atomic Power Plant. The Konkan Vinashkari Prakalp Virodhi Samiti facilitated the visit, and the team was accompanied by local reporter and movement activist Prashant Hirchekar. A Report of the visit follows.]
Introduction    
“The Areva atomic project is an atom bomb for us!” says Hamida, a widow with 6 children who depends on fishing to feed her family. “We’ll die but we won’t allow the project to come up,” says Nooresha, wife of a fisherman. These two are among a milling mass of hundreds of women, at a public meeting in Sakhri Nate, a picturesque fishing village which will be affected by the atomic power project at Jaitapur in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra. We, a 12-member team of CPI(ML) Liberation and Lal Nishan Party Leninist activists, are visiting the area to find out why the farmers and fisherfolk here  are fiercely resisting the project. The anger of these women is like a physical force; the men are calmer. They are spirited and vocal, and there are only a few burqas in sight in this predominantly Muslim village, where women sort and sell the fish caught by the men in their families. 
Some hours later, we visit Madban village, where land has been forcibly acquired from farmers for the project. There, we are met with Pramila Gavhankar, the wife of Pravin Gavhankar, who has been denied anticipatory bail that very day by the Mumbai HC in an attempt to murder case foisted on him by the police. Pramila strikes us by her dignified posture, and the confidence with which she briefs us on the struggle. “The land is like our mother; we have tended these trees as lovingly as we do our children. We ask Prithviraj Chavhan (the Maharashtra CM), will you sell your mother and abandon your children?”   Women of Sakhri Nate      
As we hear Hamida, Nooresha and Pramila, we cannot help but remember Kalavati and Sasikala of Vidarbha, a district of Maharashtra marked by farmers’ suicides, whom Rahul Gandhi had invoked in Parliament to get the Nuke Deal passed. Sasikala’s children study by lamplight today; pass the Nuke Deal and these women and their families will have energy and empowerment tomorrow, he had declared.
Today Sasikala’s and Kalavati’s sisters in another part of Maharashtra, are in a battle to defend their land and livelihood from a devastating fallout of the Nuke Deal – the Jaitapur Atomic Power Project. When we visited their villages, they told us that their kids, along with schoolchildren in a 100 schools all over Ratnagiri district, were boycotting schools for two days in protest against the Areva project. We ask Nooresha about Rahul’s promises to Kalavati, and she says, “If the project comes up, we too will be forced to commit suicide like the people of Vidarbha, because it will be the end of our livelihood.”
The Jaitapur Atomic Plant is the place where the Indo-US Nuke Deal will first be put into effect. There are huge interests at stake: the US, the Indian government, France, all know that they cannot afford the people of Jaitapur to win, because it will mean that all future projects too, and therefore the Nuke Deal itself, will be jeopardized. Will these brave women and men of Sakhri Nate, Madban and other villages of Ratnagiri prevail against such powerful forces? They are certainly determined to. They draw our attention to a slogan painted on a wall: ‘Aamcha jeev ghenya poorvi ya prakalpacha jeev ghevu’ – ‘Take the life of this project before it claims our lives.’
 
Konkan –
Paradise in Peril 

Our team visited the sites of the struggle against the atomic project on January 11-12, 2011. As the train from Delhi crosses Panvel near Mumbai, the beauty of the Konkan Railways route begins to unfold. Beautiful rivulets and waterfalls, rich greenery in the backdrop of reddish golden grass capture our attention as the rising sun parts the early morning mists. We alight at Ratnagiri station, where LNP(L) comrades are waiting for us. We visit the memorial at the birthplace of Lokmanya Tilak before driving down to Pavas. On the way, we catch our breath as hairpin bends and mountain scenery part to give us sudden glimpses of blue-green ocean, creeks and waves lapping at empty beaches.Protest Meeting at Sakhri Nate   
On the first day we met Dr Vivek Bhide of the Ratnagiri Zila Jagrook Manch, who tells us about the struggles of the past five years against polluting industries in the district, including thermal power plants, chemical industries and mining (largely illegal). The atomic plant is the latest and worst blow, he says. The Areva plant is based on the new and unproven technology of the ‘European Pressurised Reactor’ (EPR), and the people of Ratnagiri are basically being used as guinea pigs, he says. Even A Gopalakrishnan (former AERB Chairman), very much part of India’s nuclear establishment, has observed that no EPR has been constructed and commissioned for operation anywhere in the world, and two Areva EPR plants under construction (one each in Finland and France) have been severely delayed. An enquiry commissioned by the French Government concluded that the delay was due to due to serious defects in the design and unresolved safety issues. This flawed design could mean that “radiation doses to the workers and general public could be high… and therefore the current NPCIL assurances that radiation dose rates to workers and the public will be kept within the AERB stipulated limits have no basis.” (A Gopalakrishnan, New Indian Express, 3 December 2010)     
Dr Bhide, in addition to being a medical doctor, is also a mango farmer like most residents of Ratnagiri. Ratnagiri is famous for the finest quality hapoos (Alphonso), the king of mangoes. Dr. Bhide tells us that the best hapoos grows in a narrow stretch 20 kms from the sea shore. Rehabilitation or compensation is therefore meaningless for these farmers: can the government replace or recreate this unique and fragile meeting point of sea and land which produces the golden hapoos?
In a report, Madhav Gadgil, Chairperson, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, has observed that “Recently, the doors of the global export market for the Alphonso Mango have opened through Global GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) certification, and some 80 farmers made their orchards Global GAP certified, and others are in the pipeline…The global standards demand that there be no seriously air polluting industries in their vicinity. So, even if it turns out that pollution, such as from thermal power plants do not harm the orchards, the inevitable loss of export market is bound to hit the horticulture hard.” Farmers fear that the presence of an atomic power plant in the vicinity will further make their produce undesirable in the global market. Wastes from the nuclear plant are another source of concern. Though proponents of the plant claim that these radioactive wastes will be disposed off safely, the farmers are far from convinced.   These farmers are witness to how thermal power plants and other polluting industries in the area have routinely violated safety and environmental norms in disposal of waste (such as flyash); the issue of disposal of waste from the nuclear power plant is therefore another important concern for them.
The farmers are also outraged at the Environment Impact Assessment EIA’s classification of the affected area as ‘barren land.’ Ratnagiri has been designated a ‘Horticultural district’ by the Maharashtra Government, and is rich in plantations of cashew nut, coconut, cheekoo, kokum, betel nut as well as Alphonso mango. The location of the proposed plant, as well as the surrounding areas, have been designated as ‘Agro-Economic’ Zones and ‘Tourist’ Zones by the Maharashtra government. Even the land not under cultivation is valuable as grazing land for cattle. Ratnagiri is also rich in mangroves which are a unique ecosystem, and now NPCIL as well as NEERI (which has conducted the EIA) seem intent on classifying 65% of this rich and biodiverse expanse as ‘barren’!
Dr. Bhide also took up the issue of Konkan bearing a disproportionate burden for electricity generation. The Madhav Gadgil report observes, “The current energy requirements of these districts (Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg) are 180 Megawatts a year, while the current production is 4,543 Megawatts (Koyna 2000 MW, RGPCL 2200 MW, Finolex 43 MW, JSW 300 MW and remaining 900 MW proposed within 2-3 Months) a year.” Dr. Bhide says that the plan is to set up power projects adding up to 35,000 MW of power, including the 10,000 MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power project. Why should the livelihood of the people of the Konkan – dependent on horticulture, fisheries and tourism – be sacrificed, and to benefit whom, he asks? He raises the issue of the ‘carrying capacity’ of the land to bear pollution, and suggests that instead of project-based EIAs, a region with such a delicate ecosystem should have cumulative EIAs, to judge the cumulative impact of all the projects.
From Dr. Bhide’s account, it is clear that the struggle against the nuclear power plant at Jaitapur is part of the struggle of Ratnagiri’s people against indiscriminate introduction of polluting industries with scant concern for the impact on environment and livelihood. 938 hectares of land has been acquired for the Areva project, and the villages which will bear the main impact of the project include Sakhri Nate, Madban, Mithgavane, Niveli, Naate, Chavanwadi and Karel. We decided to visit the main centres of the struggle. 


Sakhri Nate – Militant Resistance  
The atomic power project is due to come up on the other side of the creek adjoining Sakhri Nate village. As soon as enter the village, we see a slogan painted on the wall of a well: ‘Jo amcha aad aala to 100% mela’ (Whoever stands in our way will be destroyed for sure). A public meeting had been organized at a community hall in the area, and we were asked to address it. As we wait for the meeting to begin, we speak to the people who are fast gathering in the hall.  
This village is home to around 5000 fisherfolk, the majority of whom are Muslims but also including Hindus. Their main concern is that once the plant comes up, around 5200 crore litres of water (more than Mumbai’s entire water supply) will be sucked into the plant for cooling, and along with it, fish and fish eggs too will get sucked in and destroyed. Amjad Borkar, the leader of the local fisherfolk, says it is estimated that 30% of fish will be destroyed just by the intake of sea water into the plant. 5100 crore litres of the used water will be dumped back in the sea beyond 2.2 kilometres through a pipeline. The temperature of this used water is supposed to be maintained at a maximum of 5˚ C higher than the ambient sea temperature, but the fisherfolk ask what is the guarantee that this temperature will actually be maintained? Also, a report published by the Bombay Natural History Society states that a continuous increase of even 0.5°C in the sea water temperature will lead to mortality of marine species. The CM, Prithviraj Chavhan has assured the fishing (macchimar) community of Ratnagiri that the slight increase in heat will “improve breeding of fish species." Hamida is incensed by the suggestion, and says “Does Chavhan take us for fools?”
Also, the increase in the temperature of the sea water may force fish to migrate to deeper waters. Most of the fishing in the area happens up to a depth of 10 fathoms, which is within the 2.2 range in which heated water will be dumped, and if fish move to deeper waters, it will badly affect the fish catch. The fisherfolk point out that if they are forced to take go deeper into the sea for catching fish, their expenses will increase substantially. They will have to purchase new boats and ships capable of going into deeper waters, and also their running expenditure including diesel consumption will increase.
The Government has promised that the nuclear plant will result in development and in increased employment. Mukhtar Kholkar laughs at this: “In our village and region, the fishing industry already employs thousands of workers from Nepal, Karnataka and other states! We provide employment to others and do not need fresh employment to be generated; all we ask is that our livelihood be left alone.”
The villagers in the area have interacted with people affected by the Tarapur nuclear reactor. “Tarapur’s villagers have told us how, after being displaced, they never got any rehabilitation and were rendered homeless. Not only that, they told us how the reactor adversely affected fishing in the area. They warned us of the consequences.” says Majid Gowarkar.      
Sakhri Nate exports fish to Japan, Europe and other countries: a nuclear plant in the vicinity with the attendant fear of radiation will affect these exports, they fear. The villagers say that around 10-12 fishing villages including Sakhri Nate will be likewise affected by the project. Apart from the impact on their livelihood, they also fear the effect of atomic radiation on fishes – and the subsequent impact on health due to consumption of the fish. This apart, they have heard of radioactive leaks in the Tarapur reactor, as well as of the horrors of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. “What if there is an accident here? We do not want a repeat of Bhopal in Ratnagiri,” say a chorus of village youth.     
The hall is bursting with people by now, with hundreds of people who are unable to enter the hall, gathered outside the hall trying to listen to the mike and peer in through the windows. Amjad Borkar forcefully articulates the villagers’ opposition to the project, saying, “We demand that the atomic plant be thrown out, not only from the village and district, but from the state and the country.” The gathered people respond enthusiastically when Medha Thatte and Comrade Kelkar of the LNP(L) and Bhimrao Bansode, Secretary, LNP(L) tell them that they will persuade the people in other districts of Maharashtra to support the struggle. They also listen with attention to Kavita Krishnan, CC member of the CPI(ML) Liberation, outlining the politics of the Nuke Deal, Nuke Liability Act, Bhopal and US imperialism. As the meeting progresses, villagers point out plainclothes police trying to look natural among the crowd.
Sakhri Nate is the place where Irfan Qazi, a local mango trader and nephew of Saifuddin Qazi, prominent Congress leader active in the anti-plant struggle, was killed in an accident on December 18. He was run down by a Sumo which locals say was provided by the project authorities and being illegally driven by police people. Suspecting police of having deliberately killed Qazi, hundreds of people had gathered to protest. The police indulged in a lathi charge and, alleging that protestors stoned the police station, took the opportunity to book the leaders of the Jaitapur movement in cases of ‘attempt to murder.’    
As we leave Sakhri Nate, the entire gathering including hundreds of women gather to bid goodbye and the slogans of ‘anu urja nako’ (No to nuclear energy) and ‘Areva vapas jao’ (Areva Go Back) ring in our ears.

Madban – Farmers at the Forefront   
Next, we visit Madban village – where the project site is located. Madban means ‘coconut forest’. As we approached, we could see rich mangroves in the adjoining creek. At the entrance to the village we can see a police van with a large number of policemen dozing in the sun.
We went to the home of Pramila Gavankar, whose husband Pravin, the main leader of the Janhit Seva Samiti leading the struggle in Madban, has been implicated in an attempt to murder case following the death of Irfan Qazi. Pramila appears calm and unfazed as she tells us that Pravin’s bail has been denied and the HC has asked him to surrender within 15 days. “On December 18, he was ill with high fever and resting in the house when news came of Qazi’s death. He went to the accident spot at Sakhri Nate where people had gathered spontaneously. To claim that Pravin instigated them to attack and kill the police is preposterous! It is just an attempt to suppress the agitation against the project. ’
We are joined by Santosh Vaghdhare, another prominent leader of the Janhit Seva Samiti, and another activist Vijay Raut. They tell us that 2800 people will lose land which has been acquired forcibly for the project. In addition, they say, land will be acquired for laying transmission lines, affecting yet more villagers. Further, a radius of around 1.8 km will be designated as a ‘red zone’ (to guard against exposure to radiation and also for security of the plant), and so villagers with homes in these areas will be displaced.      
They say that Rs 11200 per acre has been fixed as the compensation for the land. Not only is this a pittance of payment for the land itself, it does not take into account the value of the mango and other trees on the land. When asked about the value of the trees, the Collector was quoted in a local paper as saying that 100 mango trees could fetch Rs 4, 62000. Vaghdhare scoffs at this, pointing out that a single hapoos mango tree has a life of approximately 100 years. It will yield produce worth anything between Rs 7000-8000 per year. “My father, myself, and my son and our families will all be supported throughout the lifetime of these trees,” he says, “how can a one-time payment of 4 lakh even come close to compensating the worth of the trees?”      
Of all the affected farmers, just 112 have accepted compensation cheques. All of these are absentee landlords and have no real connection with or dependence on the land, says Vaghdhare. “We will never take the cheques and never give up our land,” he asserts. 
Pramila is indignant when she talks of the mandatory public hearing which is supposed to precede land acquisition. “It was held on the day of akshaya tritiya, a sacred day, and the EIA report was not provided to us in Marathi,” she says, “still, around 1000 of us attended it to protest, show black flags and reject the project.” Here, too, villagers are fearful of accidents in the reactor as well as radiation effects that may inflict a Bhopal-like tragedy on them.
The Shiv Sena and BJP in Maharashtra, seeking to cash in on the resistance to the project pushed by the Congress governments at state and centre, have expressed support for the struggle. But Vaghdhare is skeptical and wary: “We do not want a repeat of Enron, when the Shiv Sena-BJP said they would ‘throw Enron into the Arabian Sea’, but the Vajpayee Government used its 13-day tenure to give sanction to Enron instead.” Rather, he says, “Our land has been forcibly acquired as at Singur, and we want a repeat of Singur.”
Vaghdhare tells us proudly that Madban played a great role in the freedom struggle: “There are 14 families in this single village who are descended from freedom fighters. The British oppressed them, today our own government is oppressing us. But like our freedom fighter ancestors, we too are not afraid of jail – we will resist!”
The phone rings and Pramila answers it. “It was the Mumbai police,” she says, smiling, “asking if the Lal Nishan party people are at my place and whether any meeting is going to take place like the one at Sakhri Nate.” Clearly the police are keeping an eye on us.
Nuclear Energy:
Hype and Hidden Costs
“I can’t stop the project. It is going to come up because it is not just about energy but also about strategic and foreign policy.”- Jairam Ramesh, Union Minster of State for Environment and Forests (MoEF), quoted in “Report silent on spent fuel, say activists”, The Hindu, Dec 1, 2010
Jairam Ramesh’s statement shows exactly what is at stake: for the UPA, keen as it is to prove its undying loyalty to US imperialism, the proposed 10,000 MWe Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant (JNPP) is indeed a do-or-die project. And this is precisely why the Maharashtra government and the UPA are trying their level best to push through this massive project in one of the country’s most pristine, most eco-sensitive spots – Ratnagiri.
Rubbishing the resistance to the plant, Jairam Ramesh claims that it is ‘paradoxical’ that environmentalists are opposing nuclear energy. Much as UPA and the technocrats in the AERB try to convince us that nuclear energy is indeed ‘clean’ and ‘green’, (an argument that was famously echoed by West Bengal chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya), the fact remains that even the so-called ‘peaceful’ use of nuclear energy for generating power involves completely unacceptable and dangerous impacts, apart from the high risk of accidents and the costs involved.
Fission of atoms results in radiations which cannot be seen, felt or tasted. When exposure to radioactivity is low, the effects are also not seen immediately. The steam, gases and water released from nuclear power reactor can lead to radioactive contamination of the surrounding affecting trees, livestock, fish and people. Exposure to radioactivity leads to increase in incidence of tumors, cancer, infertility, congenital deformities and stillbirths. The most serious matter is that due to genetic mutations these impacts can be transmitted through generations.
Also, the nuclear industry’s claims that ‘clean’ nuclear energy is the solution to reduce greenhouse emissions and combat climate change are at best spurious. Nuclear energy is no less harmful in greenhouse gas emissions as compared to coal or gas based electricity generation. To appreciate this fact, one has to consider manufacturing of massive quantities of steel, concrete etc. for the plant and the entire nuclear cycle - cradle to grave - from uranium mining to waste storage.
And for these reasons, the world over, people as well as governments are rejecting nuclear energy as a viable option of generating electricity. According to a study commissioned by the Germany’s Federal Agency for Radiation Protection, the percentage of world-wide electricity generation accounted for by nuclear energy will decline from 14.8% in the year 2006 to an estimated 9.1% in the year 2020, and to 7.1% in the year 2030. Therefore, far from the renaissance that the nuclear establishment has been promising for years, there will be marked decline in nuclear power world-wide. Compared to the reference level of March 2009, the number of nuclear power stations in operation worldwide is likely to decrease by 22% by the year 2020, and by about 29% by the year 2030.
And at a time when nuclear energy is increasingly discredited in the world, our government is set to run roughshod over resistance and increase India’s nuclear capacity by leaps and bounds, from the current 4,120 MWe installed capacity to a whopping 63,000 MWe by 2032. In order to secure clearance from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group as part of the procedure to finalise the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, the UPA offered nuclear business worth $270 billion before the international nuclear industry. And the manner in which the Jaitapur project is being promoted further highlights the real intensions of the UPA. According to a report published by the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP), as many as 70 local self-government representatives from 10 notified villages have resigned en masse in protest against the project, and the UPA is still hell bent on promoting it. The damning social costs of the project (revealed by an extensive Social Impact Assessment prepared by TISS) are being swept under the carpet, while the so-called Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is nothing but a farce.
Several environmental concerns have been raised: the technology (EPR) is new and unproven, the radiations during production and from the spent fuel and radioactive wastes are a serious cause of concern, as is safety and the risk of accidents. And the EIA prepared by the Nagpur-based National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) has chosen to gloss over all these genuine concerns, in the most shameful and irresponsible manner possible. For instance, thousands of tonnes of spent fuel will be produced by the proposed project, and the EIA merely says that this will be transferred to an “Away From Reactor (AFR) facility”, which will be located within the JNPP premises as per IAEA and AERB requirements.
Several experts have also pointed out the huge seismic risks involved in constructing a nuclear power plant at this site. Jaitapur is located in a seismically sensitive area. It comes under Zone IV as per the earthquake hazard zoning of India (the EIA however claims that the plant will be located in a Zone III area). And as a letter written by the Konkan Bachao Samiti to Jairam Ramesh points out, a nuclear power plant shall not be put up in an area which falls beyond seismic zone 1 or 2 as per existing regulations. Over the past 20 years alone, there have been three earthquakes in Jaitapur exceeding 5 points on the Richter scale. The region experienced its strongest earthquake in 1967, having a magnitude of 6.5. In 1993, the region experienced one reaching 6.3 on the Richter scale. Local activists also point out that earthquakes have created a massive crater just a few kilometers away from the site selected for JNPP. The EIA still clears the site for a nuclear power plant by coming to the conclusion that ‘there is no earthquake activity around Jaitapur site in a radius of 39 km’!
Another major weakness of the EIA is that it has not taken into account the cumulative impact of several projects that that have either come up, or are in the pipeline. These include at last eight coal and natural gas based thermal power plants, a huge chemical industry hub at Lote and various mining projects. What is notable about the EIA is not just the shoddy assessment, but also the speed with which it was used to clear the Jaitapur project. The MoEF, which normally takes more than six months for issuing clearance, took merely 80 days to okay this project – in time to welcome French Prime Minster Sarkozy on his visit to India!
The massive drain on the public exchequer that this project will mean is also being suppressed by the UPA. Though the initial cost of the project was estimated at 25 billion dollars, the six EPRs alone will probably cost us up to whopping 54 billion dollars, if we factor in the increased cost of the EPRs being installed in Finland. Also, this cost does not include nuclear fuel costs or maintenance costs (storage of nuclear waste, decommissioning costs, additional physical security costs etc.). According to A Gopalakrishnan, former chairman of the AERB, the cost of this EPR-based project (Rs 19.5 crores per MWe) will be more than even the conventional PHWR-based nuclear projects (Rs 8 crore/MWe) or a coal-based power plant (Rs 5 crore per MWe).
Areva is also trying its level best to evade any financial liability in the case of an accident: the civil nuclear liability bill (one of the showpieces of the UPA’s kowtowing to imperialist diktats) has shifted the primary burden for accident liability from the foreign builders (AREVA) to the Indian operator (NPClL), and given the fact that even the nuclear regulatory authority of Finland has observed numerous serious flaws in the design and construction of the reactor, the results could be disastrous.
The haste and the eagerness of the Congress and the UPA is however well-matched by the determination of the people of Ratnagiri to oppose the project.

We walk a few steps from Pramila’s house to the seashore. There, we can see a breathtaking view: the ocean, with the outline of the Vijaydurg fort built by Shivaji in front, and green plateaus on both sides. On our right is the expanse of green plateau that has been allotted to the atomic project. We imagine what it will look like once this beautiful ecosystem has been replaced by an atomic reactor. Pramila Gavankar, Madban   
On our way out of the village, we try to turn towards the road leading to the project site, but are stopped by the police post, and told that we are prohibited from visiting the site. From Madban we make our way to Mithgavane, where we meet Dr. Milind Desai, a mild-mannered medical practitioner and mango farmer who has become a leading activist in the struggle. He is feeling despondent at the denial of anticipatory bail by the HC in what is obviously a false case against Gavankar. His anguish is visible as he says, “8 gram sabhas have rejected the project. I myself have identified at least 3 clauses of the Land Acquisition Act 1895 which have been violated. The Bombay Police Act 1951 Sec, 37(1)(3), prohibiting public gathering of more than five people is repeatedly invoked in the Ratnagiri whenever people of the area protest against land grab and polluting projects that threaten their livelihood. This is worse than colonial land acquisition. Konkan is the land of Ambedkar – how can it be that the constitutional rights are denied to the people of this region? We have decided to boycott the official flag hoisting on Republic Day. We want to make the point that the Republic belongs to its citizens, and the government which is crushing democracy cannot represent the Republic.”      
As we speak the phone rings: it’s the police again, asking Dr. Desai if we are at his place! We next visit the home of Saifuddin Qazi, whose nephew Irfan Qazi was killed by a vehicle driven by the police. He explains why the villagers suspected that the incident was more than an accident, “Why were the policemen in the private car in the first place? Witnesses suspect that one of the policemen themselves was driving. Even when a road accident occurs people spontaneously protest, block roads, and express anger. In this case, the anger was even more natural because police were responsible for the accident and the man killed was an activist against the project. Even if it was indeed an accident, those responsible for my nephew’s death are yet to be punished. But the spontaneous gathering of people following his death has been branded as a ‘murderous attack’ led by Gavankar!”
Conclusions and Demands 
On our return to Pavas, our team compiled our observations. A summary of these is as follows: The coastline that will be destroyed to make way for the project        
The people of Ratnagiri are overwhelmingly against polluting industries, thermal power projects as well as the Jaitapur Atomic Power Project. Their own opinions and concerns have been bulldozed to push through these projects, in violation of even the legal norms of land acquisition. In the process their democratic rights have been assaulted. The fabricated case against Pravin Gavankar in particular is a deliberate attack on the people’s struggle against the atomic project.
The EIA report is a farce, and the environmental clean chit to the Jaitapur project carries no credibility. The government has failed to satisfactorily answer any of the questions raised by the affected people about the project’s impact on environment, fisheries, horticulture, and livelihood. The promises of compensation and rehabilitation are obviously inadequate and a sham. Nor is the government able to justify its claim of low cost, ‘clean’ electricity generation from the project: even important figures within the nuclear establishment in India like A Gopalakrishnan have challenged these claims and pointed to the hidden costs and serious safety issues inherent in the untested Areva reactor.
In spite of the strong indications of adverse impact on safety, health, livelihood and environment in the Konkan people, the Governments in Maharashtra and the Centre are refusing to review the Jaitapur project only because the project is linked to the political compulsions and obligations flowing from the Indo-US Nuke Deal.        
We demanded that:
Keeping in mind the serious concerns about livelihood, safety and environment, and the people’s lack of consent, the Jaitapur Atomic Power Project be scrapped without delay.
The other thermal and polluting industries in the region which have come up in violation of a range of environmental laws be reviewed, and only those industries be allowed which are in tune with the Konkan ecosystem and the wishes of its people.
The false case against Pravin Gavankar and other movement activists be withdrawn immediately. Those responsible for the death of Irfan Qazi be brought to book.

What's the 'Aadhaar' of the....


 UID Scheme?
Gopal Krishna
The national identity card scheme represents the worst of government. It is intrusive and bullying. It is ineffective and expensive. It is an assault on individual liberty that does not promise a great good…” – Theresa May (British Home Secretary) announcing the complete dismantling of the UID project in the UK in June 2010.
The UPA’s National Identification Authority of India Bill has been approved by the Union Cabinet, and subsequently the UPA has already launched its much-touted and ambitious Unique Identification (UID) project, called Aadhaar, in some parts of the country. It is to be noted that this massive project, which has tremendous repercussions for democracy in India, is being introduced without even a formal clearance by the Indian parliament, let alone a broad-based, country-wide discussion on its implications. It is also ironical that the UPA is promoting the UID project in India at a time when several countries in the world (including the USA, the UK, Australia, China, Canada and Germany) have scrapped similar projects. As the powers-that-be try to convince us of the ‘advantages’ of the UID project, let us consider the claims. 
‘Better Delivery of Social Sector Schemes’?
According to the UPA Government, the UID will enable ‘inclusive growth’ and help the poor to better access social services by providing each citizen with a verifiable identity. The UID, we're told, will ‘facilitate delivery of basic services’, and ‘plug leakages’ in public expenditure.
This claim is highly exaggerated: after all, exclusion from social sector schemes are rarely caused by the inability to prove identity – they are, in the main, caused by the deliberate exclusion of the poor from these services and by deliberate corruption by those entrusted to run these schemes. When BPL families are unable to make use of their valid ration cards, when workers are not paid the legally mandated minimum wages, or when women workers in NREGA schemes are denied work or paid less than their due, the reason is not their lack of ability to prove their identity.
In fact, the introduction of UID is likely to go hand in hand with dismantling of the entire PDS mechanism (whereby the Government is responsible for delivery of guaranteed entitlements of food and fuel) in favour of 'smart cards' and 'cash transfers', under which the poor are likely to face even greater deprivation and exclusion.  
Foolproof Identification? 
The UID scheme is being peddled as a system of foolproof biometric identification (i.e identification through fingerprints and iris scans as well as photographs.)
But this technology is neither highly accurate nor suitable for large scale use on a population of India's size. Research commissioned by the CIA and US Security establishment in September 2010 had concluded that the current state of biometrics is "inherently fallible" and liable to develop major problems if used on a large scale. The poorest Indians, most of them engaged in hard manual labour have what is in technical terms called "low quality" fingerprints rather than well-defined ones. This same section of people are also highly prone to malnutrition-induced cataract, and corneal injury too is very common, making iris scans quite unreliable as a form of identification. In case their 'fingerprint' or 'iris scan' fails to match at a later date, how will they prove their identity? Is this unreliable form of identification not, therefore, likely to create uncertainty and exclusion for the very section in whose name it is being introduced? 
What are CIA-backed US Corporations doing on the 
UID Project?
Is the UID project a government project? If so, why has it entered into contracts with a
range of private players and corporations, including those with close links with US 
intelligence agencies? Take the instance of two 
US companies which have been hired for "Implementation of Biometric Solution for 
UIDAI." One of them is L1 Identity Solutions (whose main market, and recruitment ground,
 is the Central Intelligence Agency). Their website reads:
"American and foreign military services, defense and 
intelligence agencies rely on L-1 solutions and services to
help determine ally from enemy". Another US company is
 Accenture (which is working with US Homeland Security in their
 Smart Borders Project). This company is "committed to helping
 the (US) Department of Homeland Security" and its "solutions 
include developing prevention tactics, streamlining intelligence
 gathering and maximizing new technologies."
Why are companies closely linked to the CIA and US
 intelligence being given access to sensitive databases 
about Indian citizens? Is it for their expertise? 
The National Corruption Index, a website dedicated to
 exposing corruption in the US, has profiles on both Accenture 
and L-1, linking them to corruption. It states that Accenture was 
given a contract for a hi-tech screening system around US borders
 using fingerprint readers, optical scans and facial recognition
 software, but from the inception, the project was "plagued with 
breakdowns, mistakes and security breaches" and "has repeatedly failed to work." 
The same website tells us that the L-1 CEO is "one of the 
main privatized gatekeepers of America's borders.
" The company has a former CIA director on its board, 
and specialises in identification technology. But in October 
2007 a fraud unit found that its scanners "routinely declared
 counterfeit IDs to be valid." Can these US companies with 
their track record of failed projects, be trusted to keep India safe? 
Obviously not. But they are being entrusted with sensitive
 personal data about every Indian citizen! What guarantee
 is there that this information will not be leaked to the global 
market or expose Indian citizens to intrusive surveillance 
not only by the Indian State but even by organisations like the CIA?

‘Voluntary Participation’? 
The UPA Government has stressed that the UID would be a voluntary scheme. Nandan Nilekani, the former Infosys CEO heading the Aadhaar Project however spilled the beans when he said, "Yes, it is voluntary. But the service providers might make it mandatory. In the long run, I wouldn't call it compulsory. I would rather say that it will become ubiquitous." In other words, people will effectively have no choice but to register under the scheme because social welfare schemes and agencies like banks, insurance providers will insist on UID numbers. The upcoming legislation on the UID does not even bother to speak the language of democracy – according to the provisions of the proposed bill, one can be penalized for not updating the information provided to the UID project.
Steep Costs
The current costs are estimated at whopping Rs.45,000 crores, and this is probably a gross underestimate. Operationalising the UID scheme on the ground for NREGA and the public distribution system would require placing fingerprint readers at every panchayat office and every ration shop. The total costs of placing fingerprint readers in each PDS outlet and in each of India’s 600,000 villages have not been taken into account in official cost calculations.
Consequences for Privacy
The NIAI Bill and UID project cannot be seen in isolation from a host of other Bills and projects relating, among other things, to privacy, DNA Profiling, Public Information Infrastructure and Innovations (PIII) for a National Knowledge Network and the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID). Joining the dots of all these various proposals, the picture that emerges is an ominous one of surveillance and tracking of Indian citizens to serve corporate and imperialist interests, economic as well as political. 
Chidambaram's Man Suggests "Corporate Territorial Armies"
Mahindra Special Services Group CEO Captain Raghu Raman who heads NATGRID, a pet project of Chidambaram's Home Ministry to integrate intelligence databases, has prepared a report in which he makes the audacious suggestion that "it's time for the corporates to step in" to the arena of security. In favour of this idea, he cites the precedence for private security contractors in the Israel, the US and other countries. He proposes that corporates be allowed to raise their own "private territorial armies." He concludes that "If the commercial czars don't begin protecting their empires now, they may find the lines of control cutting across those very empires."
Let us remind ourselves that this is no corporate crank speaking. A man who advocates private armies for corporates has been entrusted by the Home Ministry to head a crucial national intelligence project, while companies who are "privatised gatekeepers" in the US have been given contracts for implementation of the UID project. What does it add up to? 

On UID, the Draft Paper on Privacy Bill states, “Data privacy and the need to protect personal information is almost never a concern when data is stored in a decentralized manner. However, all this is likely to change with the implementation of the UID Project. One of the inevitable consequences of the UID Project will be that the UID Number will unify multiple databases. As more and more agencies of the government sign on to the UID Project, the UID Number will become the common thread that links all those databases together. Over time, private enterprise could also adopt the UID Number as an identifier for the purposes of the delivery of their services or even for enrolment as a customer...Once this happens, the separation of data that currently exists between multiple databases will vanish.” This poses a threat to the identity of citizens and the idea of residents of the state as private persons will be forever abandoned. The potential for the UID data to be leaked to market forces as well as for intrusions by the state into citizens' privacy becomes enormous. Seen in conjunction with the involvement in the UID project of US corporations close to the CIA (see box) and with potentially intrusive Home Ministry initiatives like NATGRID which aim to integrate 21 databases to feed information to 11 security and intelligence agencies including RAW and IB, serious concerns about the expansion of the web of surveillance arise.     
The revolving door phenomenon – where corporate honchos dictate, guide and execute public policy – is very much visible in the UID project too and this explains their unadulterated enthusiasm for this project. Clearly, the UID project will open the doors to an unprecedented access of our personal and financial information to the corporate world; paving the way for misuse and manipulation of such information. The UID scheme is a blatant attempt to convert a resident into a number, the Indian population into a global market and then citizens into subjects.

Thursday, 28 April 2011

Confessions of a...


CEO Prime Minister


Ahead of the budget session of Parliament, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had a televised meeting with some select editors of television channels. The Prime Minister had a simple explanation for all the problems facing the country: ‘compulsions of coalition politics’. And he had a simple suggestion: the media should not pay too much attention to the scams and other problems for it affects the ‘self-confidence of the people’ and the ‘international image of the country’! The economist PM brushed aside the whole issue of the 2G scam by likening the spectrum loot to the subsidy on food, fuel and fertilizer! And he also did not forget to remind his listeners that his government would complete its term for it still had a lot of unfinished business.
In May 2009 the UPA had returned to power promising food security for the hungry and ‘inclusive growth’ for all those who have never been invited to the celebrations of economic growth. But while food security and inclusive growth still remain cruel jokes, under UPA-II, the country has had no respite from soaring prices and mega scams. The government knows it has forfeited whatever confidence the electorate may have reposed in it and it therefore asks the media not to weaken the ‘self-confidence’ of the people by focusing too much on the scams! And if the PM’s press meet was any indication, the media is only too willing to play ball. There was hardly anything asked on the issue of illicit outflow of Indian wealth abroad, estimated at Rs 240 crore every single day. Nor was any clarification sought from the PM on the issue of appointing a tainted official as the CVC!
The PM had the audacity to compare the loss to the national exchequer caused by the spectrum loot to the subsidies meant for the poor. Even if one ignores the crucial distinction between the beneficiaries in the two cases – the 2G spectrum loot only bolstered corporate coffers while the subsidies are meant to help the poor survive the onslaught of the market – how can the PM compare a budgeted subsidy to a loss caused by the non-auction of a key resource? If it is the government’s policy to allot spectrum on ‘first come, first serve’ basis and not through auction why did not the government declare that? Why did the government then go in for auction in the case of 3G spectrum, claiming credit for the revenue it yielded? Why did Manmohan Singh write to the Telecom Minister Raja in November 2007 suggesting auction of 2G spectrum if he thought it should be made available to telecom companies at subsidized rates?
The Al Jazeera correspondent of course drew the PM’s attention to the ongoing developments in the Arab world and asked if he thought such mass upsurges could also happen in India. True to his politics, Manmohan Singh expressed concern over what was happening in the Arab world before reluctantly extending his good wishes to the people of Egypt if they wanted to move towards democratization! He was however sure that there was no ‘danger’ of Egypt being replicated in India, for India is a ‘functional democracy’ where the people “already have a right to change governments”. And he seemed to be sure that the Indian people would not exercise that right against his government! “Of all the decisions that I take, 7 out of 10 turn out to be correct. The shareholders of a normal corporation will say a job well done”, said Singh.
So here we have Singh’s essential vision of democracy and his role as Prime Minister: he is the CEO of a ‘normal corporation’! Manmohan Singh and his ilk can only see politics through the corporate prism – where the government is just a service provider to those who can afford to buy that service. Not even a ‘sleeping shareholder’, the notion of a citizen has actually been reduced to that of a fee-paying customer and those who cannot afford to pay simply do not count! But India is not a ‘normal corporation’ – it is a country of more than a billion people 77% of whom live on a daily income of less than Rs. 20 while Rs. 240 crore daily migrate illegally to the safer shores of foreign banks. Manmohan Singh is a crisis manager whose way of crisis management only deepens the crisis. In 1991 he initiated the new economic policies in the name of solving the country’s balance of payments crisis. Twenty years later, there is crisis on every front, but Manmohan Singh and his ilk are doing brisk business.
The people will have to accept the challenge thrown up by Manmohan Singh. Beyond a mere change of government, the Indian people will have to rise for a change in the disastrous policies. The entire policy establishment of liberalization, privatization and globalization and its trademark products – economic crisis, megabuck scams and state-corporate assault on democracy – will have to be dismantled. In Manmohan Singh’s vocabulary, his normal corporation will have to be sent out of business. And if it needs a replication of Egypt in India, the people of India will have to rise to the occasion and foot the bill for a real change.

Food Security for All :


Too Much for UPA-II to Digest?
Kavita Krishnan
The tussle between the National Advisory Council and the Expert Committee headed by the PM’s Economic Advisor C Rangarajan over the National Food Security Bill is being projected as a contest between the ‘pro-people concerns’ of the NAC headed by Sonia Gandhi, and the neoliberal commitments of Manmohan Singh on the other. Indications are, however, that it’s all a case of calculated shadow-boxing, with food security being a casualty at a time when food prices are hitting an all-time high and India has among the worst rates of hunger and malnutrition in the world, especially among children and women.
Under pressures from the Government, the NAC had already watered down its initial proposals of universal PDS coverage along with child and maternity nutrition programmes. According to the NAC’s proposals, the BPL/APL divide was to continue, with the ‘priority segment’ (46 % of the rural population and 28 % of the urban population) being eligible for 35 kg of foodgrain at the rate of Re.1 a kg for millets, Rs.2 a kg for wheat and Rs.3 a kg for rice; and the ‘general segment’ (44 % of rural and 22 % of urban populations) being eligible for 20 kg per household at half the minimum support price for the grains. The 46% of ‘priority’ rural population is based on the rural poverty ratio for 2004-05, with a margin of 10% for “exclusion errors.”
The NAC’s calculation of ‘priority’ population is only marginally higher than the Tendulkar Committee’s estimate (rural poverty at 41.8%), and much lower than the N C Saxena committee’s estimate that between 50-80% of rural households were poor. And it is a far cry from the Arjun Sengupta report’s estimate, which had found that 77% of India’s population lived on less than Rs 20 a day. At a time when food prices are soaring, how much can Rs 20 stretch? Yet even the NAC proposal left out a large section of such people from the ‘priority’ list of the poor.           
As Jean Dreze, a member of the NAC, put it in a scathing dissent note, the NAC’s was “a minimalist proposal”: far from being a radical food guarantee, or even a substantial expansion of the existing PDS coverage, it was even a curtailment of the existing PDS model under which APL households too are eligible for 35 kgs of grain. But even this ‘minimalist’ proposal has been too much for the UPA-II to digest. It appointed the Rangarajan panel to review the NFSB proposal, which, on cue, declared that the NAC proposal was infeasible, since there was a shortage of food stocks to meet the requirement. When food grain stocks rot in godowns, prompting even the Supreme Court to take notice, can it really be that India lacks food stocks to feed all her people?
The Rangarajan panel has sought to mask its hostility to the very idea of expanded PDS coverage behind a facade of concern for the burden placed on the poor, arguing that if the Government goes for larger procurement to stock the PDS, it will run the ‘danger of distorting food prices in the open markets,’ thereby increasing the burden of food prices on the poor. This is not only rank hypocrisy, it makes no sense economically. After all, increased procurement if accompanied by increased distribution cannot result in increased food prices. On the contrary, it has the potential to ease the agrarian crisis by guaranteeing an assured minimum income for the crisis-ridden peasantry.
The Rangarajan panel recommends an even further dilution of the NAC proposal – suggesting that guaranteed PDS coverage be restricted to the ‘priority’ households (defined as official BPL estimates + a margin of 10% of BPL population, amounting to 46% rural and 28% urban population) which will receive 35 kgs at Rs 2 per kg wheat and Rs 3 per kg rice. State-wise BPL population cut-off will be fixed from above by the centre. According to the Rangarajan panel, PDS foodgrain can be sold to the non-BPL population at the Minimum Support Price. Further, the Rangarajan panel, in the name of reforming the PDS mechanism, essentially suggests dismantling it in favour of a system of ‘smart cards’ whereby beneficiaries can “go to any store of their choice and use their smart cards or food coupons to buy food.” The Rangarajan panel’s suggestion disturbingly indicates the UPA-II’s motive to privatise the PDS, relieving the Government of accountability for its functioning.   
Jean Dreze’s dissent note had observed that “the NAC proposals are a great victory for the government – they allow it to appear to be doing something radical for food security, but it is actually ‘more of the same’”. To confuse the issue, the UPA-II is seeking to restrict the entire question of food security to a debate between the minimalist proposal of the NAC and the even more minimalist proposal of the Rangarajan panel – both of which are a mockery of any genuine programme of ‘food for all.’ The Rangarajan recommendations will serve as a pretext for further retreat on part of the NAC, and behind the NAC-Rangarajan smokescreen, the UPA-II plans to stall, delay and dilute its promise of guaranteed food security for all.