Raja Pervez Ashraf Becomes New Pakistani Prime Minister: Political Instability in Country Continues

Water and Power Minister Raja Parvez Ashraf has taken over as the new Pakistani prime minister. Filled with little difficulty with the country’s National Assembly (parliament) electing Ashraf as a replacement for Yousuf Raza Gilani, disqualified by the Supreme Court.

The 61-year-old loyalist of the Bhutto family was pitchforked into the hot seat after the original choice Makhdoom Shahabuddin faced an arrest warrant. But the new leader himself is dogged by corruption charges relating to his tenure as power minister.

The 342-member National Assembly chose Ashraf as the country's 25th prime minister with 211 votes, against Opposition PML-N nominee Sardar Mehtab Ahmed Khan Abbasi who got 89 votes.

Undoubtedly, Ashraf is lucky to have been elevated to the highest executive post, as the first choice of President Asif Ali Zardari, Makhdoom Shahabuddin, missed the bus because of an arrest warrant issued against him by a Sindh court in an ephedrine scam case.

Since the issue was contempt of the highest court in the land the verdict was not unexpected, though the scale of punishment is. While all Supreme Court verdicts must always be honored even if they do not appear to be sound, it may not be possible to avoid a prolonged discussion on the present judgment. There are quite a few issues that will need to be clarified.

To his admirers, Pakistan's Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is a hero whose relentless pursuit of a money-laundering case against the president is teaching a generation of the country's leaders a long-overdue lesson in respect for the law.

To his critics, he is a runaway judge in the grip of a messiah complex whose turbo-charged brand of activism threatens to upend the power balance underpinning Pakistan's precarious embrace of democracy.

Recently, Chaudhry made his boldest move yet by disqualifying Prime Minister Gilani as punishment for his repeated refusal to obey court orders to re-activate a corruption case against President Zardari.

Gilani's downfall marked a watershed in a long-running showdown between the judiciary and the government that has laid bare the institutional tensions plaguing a country that has test fired ballistic nuclear missiles, but has yet to agree on how it should be run.

"In practical terms, democracy is finished because the balance of power between the parliament, the executive and the judiciary has been ruined," said a senior member of Zardari's ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP).

Judicial Coup

The military, which has ruled Pakistan for about half of its 65 years as an independent nation, has also not hidden its disdain of the Zardari government, but has made it clear it does not wish to seize power. And it has its own problems with Chaudhry's activism.

The present crisis has its roots in Gilani’s refusal to follow the Supreme Court’s 2009 order to request Swiss authorities to reopen cases of graft against President Zardari. On his part, Gilani has pointed out that the President enjoyed immunity from such charges. But the apex court had disagreed — having only recently overturned a 2007 presidential amnesty to politicians accused of corruption, from which Zardari and his late wife Benazir Bhutto benefited the most. Since then, an epic battle has ensued, with both institutions attempting to protect their own turf. Ultimately, in January the Supreme Court ordered legal proceedings against Gilani, and in April, the then Prime Minister was convicted for contempt of court. At the time, he was given only a token sentence with the apex court leaving it to the Speaker of the National Assembly to decide if Gilani could continue as prime minister.

The drama has been spiced by allegations of bribe-taking brought against Chaudhry's son by a billionaire property developer, who has himself been accused of land-grabbing and fraud. The controversy briefly put the stern-faced judge on the defensive before he regained the initiative by disqualifying Gilani.

The next chapter in the saga started when the Supreme Court holds its latest hearing in more than two years of legal wrangling aimed at forcing the government to re-open proceedings against Zardari.

Pakistan's political class is now transfixed by the question of whether Chaudhry will opt to pause in the wake of his victory over Gilani, or press home his advantage by demanding that Raja Pervez Ashraf, the new prime minister, reactivate the case.

Charges Against Gilani

Earlier on June 19, the Pakistani Supreme Court declared that Gilani stood disqualified as the prime minister since April 26, 2012 and ceased to be the premier since that date. The court punished with 30-second imprisonment. It also asked President Zardari to take steps for continuity of the democratic process, an apparent reference to the election of a new prime minister. Gilani was elected Prime Minister in March 2008 and has remained in that office longer than any other elected leader in the country’s history.

Capping approximately 30 months of bitter feud between the judiciary and the government, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Chaudhry held that Gilani, “ceased” to be the prime minister from April 26, 2012.

Gilani was then convicted and sentenced for not obeying court orders to reopen graft charges in Switzerland against President Zardari.

Contrary to expectations that the PPP will back him to the hilt, the ruling party said it would abide by the verdict and set in motion the process of selecting Gilani’s successor.

The Election Commission also issued a formal notice disqualifying Gilani as a Member of Parliament, hours after the Supreme Court ordered it to do so. A session of the National Assembly or lower house of Parliament is likely to be convened for the formal election of the new prime minister.

The present verdict came in response to several petitions that had challenged National Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza’s decision not to disqualify Gilani following his conviction.

However, the timing of the judgment is definitely suspect as it comes only days after a business tycoon accused the Chief Justice’s son of accepting millions in bribes to swing cases. Also, the legal validity of the judgment has come under a cloud. References in the judgment, for instance, to two Indian court cases are largely misplaced.

New Cabinet

A total of 27 Federal Ministers and 11 Ministers of state were given portfolios. Hina Rabbani Khar and Naveed Qamar retained their portfolios of foreign and defense, respectively, in the new Cabinet, announced by Prime Minister Ashraf, which has some new faces. Most of the Ministers in Ashraf's Cabinet have been drawn from the previous dispensation of Gilani.

Hina retained the Foreign Ministry while Qamar Zaman Kaira, who had also filed his nomination for prime ministerial contest as a covering candidate, retained the Information Ministry. Qamar was again assigned the Defense Ministry.

Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, whose PML-Q party is a key ally in the Pakistan People's Party-led coalition, was again inducted as a senior minister and given the Defence Production and Industry portfolios.

Farzana Raja, a loyalist of PPP chief and President Asif Ali Zaradri, was among the new faces inducted into the Cabinet. She was given charge of the Benazir Income Support Programme, a scheme to help the poor.

The other members of the Cabinet include Makhdoom Amin Fahim (commerce), Arbab Alamgir Khan (communication), Nazar Muhammad Gondal (capital administration and development), Rana Muhammad Farooq Saeed Khan (climate change), Abdul Hafeez Shaikh (finance), Mir Hazar Khan Bajrani (inter-provincial coordination), Manzoor Wattoo (Kashmir affairs), Farooq Naek (law and justice).

Brief Profile

A strong loyalist of the Bhutto family, Ashraf hails from a family of agriculturists and remained in his occupation until he joined PPP of Rawalpindi in Punjab. Before joining active politics, 61-year-old Ashraf was an agriculturist and businessman by profession. He obtained his undergraduate degree from University of Sindh and did his diploma from UK in Industrial Management.

Ashraf, who was PPP cochairman Zardari’s second choice for the post of premier, became the main candidate after an arrest warrant was issued against party nominee Makhdoom Shahbuddin for alleged irregularities during his tenure as Health Minister.

Interestingly, Ashraf is facing a probe by the National Accountability Bureau for alleged corruption in rental power projects during his tenure as Water and Power Minister.

He was secretary-general of the PPP (Parliamentarians), a party formed in 2002 by the PPP for the purpose of complying with electoral rules governing Pakistani parties. The party contested the 2002 elections while former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was living in self-imposed exile.

Ashraf, who was elected to the National Assembly from Gujar Khan constituency in Rawalpindi district — both in 2002 and 2008 — served twice in the cabinet of Yousuf Raza Gilani, who was disqualified by the Supreme Court.

Ashraf resigned from Gilani’s cabinet in February 2011 after allegations of corruption in power projects. He returned to the cabinet in April 2012 when he was appointed minister for Information Technology. His candidature was backed by PML-Q, a major ally of the PPP with more than 50 seats in the National Assembly.

Tough Time Ahead

The new Pakistani prime minister not only faces corruption cases against him but is also considered an “insensitive” minister. He is accused of being solely responsible for Pakistan’s energy crisis. Instead of trying to find a workable solution to the worsening power supply problem, he has been making promises which he could never fulfill. It is surprising what made Mr Zardari choose him for heading the government as people have been protesting at different places over unending load-shedding, criticizing Ashraf for mishandling the situation.

Moreover, the new prime minister is also likely to face demands for reopening graft cases against Zardari from the Supreme Court.

Ashraf, who belongs to a royal family of Rawalpindi in Punjab, was elected in a two-way contest during a special session of Parliament after three other candidates – Shahabuddin and Qamar Zaman Kaira of the PPP and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman – withdrew from the race.

Zardari, a consummate political survivor, has already sacrificed Gilani in his determination to ensure the money-laundering case, which falls under Swiss jurisdiction and dates back the 1990s, remains closed.

While many Pakistanis are happy to see his unpopular government on the ropes, the pugnacious chief justice is facing a growing backlash from those who fear his court-room victories are being bought at the price of Pakistan's stability.

India will have to watch his moves as he has declared that he will try to do all he can to improve Pakistan’s ties with New Delhi. But will he have time for such moves when he has so much to concentrate on the domestic front.

New National Telecom Policy 2012: Roaming To Become Free

The Union Cabinet has approved the National Telecom Policy (NTP) 2012, which has been released after a delay of over a year. The policy aims to ultimately abolish roaming charges, allow users to retain their numbers even if they move from one zone to another, in addition to boosting transparency and growth in the scandal-hit sector. 

The draft of the new policy was released by Minister for Communications and IT Minister Kapil Sibal in October 2011. The target is one nation-one mobile number portability and working toward one nation free roaming.

Advantage

Under the new policy, roaming charges would be done away with thus allowing subscribers to use same number across country without having to pay extra money. Also, it would allow a subscriber to retain his/her original number while shifting base from one city or state to another.

However, consumers will have to wait for some time for this, as the Department of Telecom will first work out modalities of the new scheme before it is brought into force. No timeframe has yet been fixed for the implementation of the policy. The new policy seeks to provide a predictable and stable policy regime for a period of nearly 10 years.

The NTP 2012 envisages increasing penetration of telecom services in rural area from current level of around 39 to 70 per cent by 2017 and 100 per cent by the year 2020. Incidentally, the draft NTP had suggested a 60 per cent rural penetration by 2017.

Under the new policy, broadband speed has been increased to minimum of 2 megabit per second (mbps). This change will come into force with immediate effect.

Delinking of Licenses

Moreover, the NTP-2012 will also separate telecom licenses and spectrum, against the current practice of bundling them, and will charge a market-derived price for the airwaves; the same will apply in the case of broadcasters. Also, rules for Internet telephony would be relaxed under the new policy as it envisages increasing penetration of telecom services in rural areas from the current approximately 39 per cent to 70 per cent by 2017, and 100 per cent by 2020.

However, post the Supreme Court judgment of February 2, 2012, which mandates spectrum auctions, the separation of license and spectrum has already become an undeniable reality. Regardless of the NTP 2012, the DoT would have to separate licenses from spectrum just as it did through an executive order following a Group of Ministers (GoM) direction to auction 3G and BWA spectrum in 2010.

The policy also seeks liberalization of spectrum even though the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), in its latest recommendations, while setting up the reserve price, has already cleared service and technology neutrality with regard to future spectrum auctions. Critical of this move, industry body AUSPI says the proposal to liberalize spectrum in the 1800 MHz band is one of the policy's biggest flaws.

Provisions Under Draft Policy

Originally intended to be NTP 2011, the draft policy was released for public comments only in October 2011, forcing it to be rechristened NTP 2012. The actual timelines for implementation of individual announcements within the new telecom policy are yet to be made known.

With the new policy in place, consumers who use national roaming can now expect to pay local call charges though it is unclear when ‘free roaming' will be initiated. At present, consumers pay local call charges and a premium when traveling outside their service area. The policy also allows national number portability, but again, with no visible timelines.

Other forward-looking propositions like resale of services could become critical in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's cancellation of 122 licenses, which will cease to exist as of August 1, 2012. A sharp reduction in the competition level from 14 operators currently to 7-8 operators could be made up by allowing mobile companies to set up resellers. Services resale is universally recognized as a way to increase competition without duplicating infrastructure or fragmenting the spectrum.

Additionally, it mentions cloud computing, next generation networks, IPV6 and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) as thrust areas — all of which are forward-looking and embrace future technologies. It remains to be seen whether average Internet users will be allowed to use VoIP, especially since this move has been opposed vehemently over the last 5 years by cellular mobile operators.

There is very little in the policy that will help end the impasse faced by the telecom sector. Spectrum pricing, reserve price for the upcoming 2G auctions, historical pricing of spectrum for operators who have received spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz and the more recent contentious issues of reframing, etc, will have to be dealt with through executive decisions, most of which fall outside the purview of the NTP 2012 announcement.

It is also unlikely that the policy by itself will see any major reestablishment of investor confidence, which has been on the decline since late 2010. Both Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) and domestic investments faced a sharp decline during 2010-11 vis-à-vis previous years, according to a recent PWC report. The trend has continued downwards even for the fiscal year ending 2012.

Global Hub of Domestic Manufacturing

The policy aspires to make India a global hub of domestic manufacturing, though not much detail on how this mammoth objective will be achieved is available. The draft policy had mentioned preferential market access for Indian vendors as one of the tactics to ensure a boost to telecom manufacturing in India. This drew severe criticism from the Commerce Ministry on grounds that it violated India's commitments at WTO and GATT. The DoT was forced to give an explicit commitment that WTO and GATT's concerns would be kept in view while issuing guidelines on operationalization of the policy.

The NTP 2012 expects to take India's rural teledensity from 39 to 70 percent in the next 5 years with the target that every single Indian will have a phone by 2020. The policy also gets a formal approval of the new unified licensing regime which allows companies to provide ISP, fixed line, international long distance, national long distance, and a few other services through a single license, whose cost has been proposed by the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) at Rs. 10 crore. So far, very few companies, if any, have shown a desire to acquire the new unified license.

Earlier policies

The policy will be seen as driving small incremental changes with very little ability to solve the existing sector crises, unlike the NTP 1994, which spurred not just private sector investment in mobile and fixed line services but also initiated 49 percent FDI for the first time — ushering in telecom liberalization.

Earlier in 1999, a second policy — which lasted nearly 13 years — slashed costs across the board for the operators and by extension the consumers by moving from a license fee regime to a revenue share structure.

It also opened up the sector to future competition, breaking the duopoly contractual arrangements which had existed in mobile and fixed line telephony until 2000.

Later, starting 2002, additional competition was introduced in the national and international long distance sectors, which led to the slashing of tariffs, in some cases, by more than 90 percent.

Assessment

The new telecom policy is very welcome as, among other things, it brings in transparency and takes away powers of vital decision-making from the telecom minister of the day and vests it with a ministerial panel. Perhaps there should be a time frame set for the panel so that decisions are not in limbo waiting for the panel to meet.

The other laudable provision is to make India a manufacturing hub for telecom equipment. This is a challenge as manufacturers will have to compete with China in terms of price and volume.

New Benefits

Roaming Fun: With national roaming set to become free, the subscribers need not worry about charges being levied on them while traveling to a different city or state.

Broadband Boost: Speed increased to minimum of 2 mbps. This will come into force with immediate effect

More Transparency: Licenses to be de-linked from spectrum. The policy will allow operators to provide services based on any technology by using airwaves and will not restrict them to use it for particular service using any specific frequency band.

Poverty Lines and BPL Population: State of HDI in India

The Planning Commission has recently released the latest poverty estimates for the country showing a decline in the incidence of poverty by 7.3 per cent over the past five years and stating that anyone with a daily consumption expenditure of Rs. 28.35 and Rs. 22.42 in urban and rural areas respectively is above the poverty line.
The new poverty estimates for 2011-12 will only add to the furore triggered by the Commission's affidavit in the Supreme Court in October in which the Below Poverty Line (BPL) cap was pegged at an expenditure of Rs. 32 and Rs. 26 by an individual in the urban and rural areas respectively at the going rate of inflation in 2010-11.
Eventually, Union Minister of Rural Development Jairam Ramesh and Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia jointly set aside the cap suggested by the Tendulkar Committee and set up a new committee to work out a new methodology for identifying the BPL households.
The present system had to be continued until a new one was worked out and that would be done only after the Socio-economic and Caste Census was completed.
Impact of Government Spending
Similarly, Planning Commission members Abhijit Sen and Mihir Shah separately underlined the need to adopt the same methodology to understand the impact of government spending on the people and across the States over a period of time.
The figure of expenditure in the Supreme Court affidavit had been arrived at by adjusting the figures for 2004-05 with the prevailing inflation rate in 2011-12 and not based on the survey conducted across the country. The survey for 2011-12 is likely to be completed by July and the report would be released in December.
Tendulkar Methodology
Government programs had been delinked from the poverty line estimated on the basis of the Tendulkar methodology which was only being used to understand the impact of government programs over a period of time.
The impact of the new list will be felt on the Rural Development Ministry schemes, particularly those availing various kinds of pension under the National Social Assistance Program.
As per the Household Consumer Expenditure Survey for 2009-10, 29.9 per cent of the population alone were under the BPL from 37.2 per cent in 2004-05.
Rural Poverty
Rural poverty has declined by eight percentage points, from 41.8 per cent to 33.8 per cent, and urban poverty by 4.8 per cent, from 25.7 per cent to 20.9 per cent.
At the national level, anyone earning Rs. 672.8 monthly that is earning Rs. 22.42 per day in the rural area and Rs. 859.6 monthly or Rs. 28.35 per day in the urban area is above the poverty line. Population as on March 1, 2010 has been used for estimating the number of persons below the poverty line.
The total number of people below the poverty line in the country is 35.46 crore as against 40.72 crore in 2004-05. In rural areas, the number has come down from 32.58 crore five years ago to 27.82 crore and the urban BPL number stands at 7.64 crore as against 8.14 crore five years ago.
One of the most astonishing revelations is that poverty has actually gone up in the north-eastern States of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland.
Even big States such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh registered only a marginal decline in poverty ratio, particularly in the rural areas, whereas States such as Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Uttarakhand saw about 10 per cent decline in poverty over the past years.
States with high incidence of poverty are Bihar at (53.5 per cent), Chhattisgarh (48.7 per cent), Manipur (47.1 per cent), Jharkhand (39.1), Assam (37.9 per cent) and Uttar Pradesh (37.7 per cent).
However, it is in poverty-ridden Odisha that monthly per head expenditure of just Rs. 567.1 and Rs. 736 in rural and urban areas respectively puts one above the poverty line, while in Nagaland, where the incidence of poverty has gone up, the per capita consumption expenditure of Rs. 1016.8 and Rs. 1147.6 in rural and urban areas puts one above the poverty level.
Among social groups in the rural areas, Scheduled Tribes (47.4 per cent) suffer the highest level of poverty, followed by Scheduled Castes (42.3 per cent), Other Backward Castes (31.9 per cent) as against. 33.8 per cent for all classes.
In rural Bihar and Chhattisgarh, nearly two-third of the SCs and the STs are poor where as in States like Manipur, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh it is more than 50 per cent.
In urban areas, 34.1 per cent of SCs, 30.4 of STs and 24.3 per cent OBCs fall under this category against 20.9 per cent for all classes.
Poverty Estimates
In September 2011, the Planning Commission has told the Supreme Court that the BPL population in the country is 40.74 crore and the poverty line for the urban and rural areas could be provisionally placed at Rs. 965 per capita per month (approximately Rs. 32 per day) and Rs. 781 per capita per month (around Rs. 26 per day), respectively.
The Planning Commission in an affidavit said that the BPL population at present touched by the public distribution services (PDS) was 35.98 crore.
The poverty estimates for year 2009-10 were being worked out and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged (on the basis) of Tendulkar ratio on 2004-05 projection.
The Planning Commission filed the affidavit in pursuance of the May 14 order of the apex court bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Deepak Verma, which said that according to the expert group headed by Suresh Tendulkar at the price level of 2011, it was impossible for an individual in urban and rural area to consume 2,100 calories in Rs. 20 and Rs. 15, respectively.
The bench's order asked the Planning Commission to 'revise norms of per capita amount looking at the price index of May 2011 or any subsequent dates'.
The affidavit stated that on applying price increase using the consumer price index for industrial workers in urban areas and the consumer price index for agricultural laborers for rural areas, 'the poverty line at June 2011 price level can be placed provisionally at Rs. 965 per capita per month in urban areas and Rs. 781 per capita per month in rural areas'.
The affidavit further stated: "At June 2011 price level, for a family of five, this provisional poverty line would amount to Rs. 4,824 per month in urban areas and Rs. 3,905 per month in rural areas."
The affidavit said that the final poverty line following the Tendulkar Committee ratio would only be available after completion of the 2011-12 National Sample Survey (NSS) and this would vary from state to state because of price differential.
Moderate Malnourishment
It is no secret that India is doing quite poorly on a number of development counts. According to the Human Development Report, India languishes at around 130th rank among of 177 countries. The International Food Policy Research Institute’s Global Hunger Index ranks India 94th among 118 countries surveyed. The World Food Program (WFP) estimates half of our children suffer from severe or moderate malnourishment.
Sixty-seven out of 1,000 children born in India die before the age of five. Despite a national policy for compulsory primary education, only 50 per cent of children have access to proper education.The World Bank’s own estimate of poverty in 2007 has been radically revised by new cost of living data which draws the new poverty line at $1.25 at 2005 purchasing power parity. On this basis a shocking 41.6 per cent of India’s population — or 456 million people — live below the poverty line, notes Raghav Gaiha, professor of Public Policy, University of Delhi. This is about one-third of the world’s poor population. Even this World Bank data is an underestimate because it does not adequately cover the rural areas where the vast majority of the poor live.
The Planning Commission has accepted the Tendulkar Committee report, which says that 37 per cent of people in India live below the poverty line. This arbitrary method based on an income of `32 per day for urban area and `26 for the rural, has been widely disputed. India wants to be globally respected as a world power but refuses to apply global standards of calculating poverty, which should at least be in line with the World Bank criterion of $1.25 per day.
There is an urgent need to agree on some objective criteria by which to ascertain the number of those in the BPL category. The multidimensional poverty indicators developed by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative and applied by the Human Development Index (HDI) 2010, are perhaps the most reliable measures developed so far. They include: years of schooling, child enrolment, mortality (any age), nutrition, electricity, sanitation, drinking water, flooring, cooking fuel, and asset ownership. Each of these indicators is given due weight. The new Inequality Index as deployed in the HDI further elaborates the nature of disparities and shocking poorness of the poor in relation to the richness of the rich.According to this calculation the proportion of BPL families in India is 55.4 per cent of the population. Bihar fares poorest, with 61.4 per cent of the people below the poverty line, while Kerala has the lowest fraction of BPL people — 40.9 per cent.
NREGS and Several Other Job-Creation Projects
The Planning Commission’s figures on reduction of poverty to 29.8 per cent in 2009-10 from 37.2 per cent in 2004-05 is welcome as it was expected, considering that it comes on the back of the government’s flagship National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) and several other job-creation projects like the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna. Welcome as it is that 47 million people have been lifted from poverty, the sorry fact remains that 365 million people — one-third of our population — remain below the poverty line in a country that is growing fast.
These figures only reflect advances made in implementing the government’s “inclusive growth” policy. It clarified that in no way is it going to be a yardstick to cut down employment generation by the government. The Opposition’s fears might not be entirely unfounded: Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s recent Union Budget lowered spending on NREGS from `40,000 crores (in the previous budget) to `33,000 crores as last year only `31,000 crores was spent out of the budgeted amount.Schemes like NREGS continue to be indispensable for creating employment and putting purchasing power in the hands of the rural poor across the country.

Post-Godhra Massacre Case: Narendra Modi, Others Get Clean Chit

The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) has given Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi a clean chit in the post-Godhra Gulberg massacre case and sought its closure as it found no evidence against him. Modi’s clean chit was revealed by a trial court in Ahmedabad on April 10, which said that the SIT had said “it did not find any prosecutable evidence against Narendra Modi and 69 others” in the massacre. Putting a spanner in the works for Modi and others, however, are independent findings by amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran on the Gulberg killings.
The SIT was headed by former CBI Chief R.K. Raghavan and probed the Gulberg Society riots of 2002. It is believed to have said its findings should be treated as a “closure report.”
Though magistrate M.S. Bhatt did not pronounce the court's decision on the closure report, he ordered the SIT to give a copy of it, within 30 days, to the complainant, Zakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, who was among the 69 killed in the massacre.
In his order on a batch of petitions seeking a copy of the report, including the one filed by Zakia Jafri, Bhatt said the investigators had filed a closure report, having found no evidence to justify the filing of an FIR against any of the persons named in Zakia Jafri's complaint in the Supreme Court, accusing Modi and 62 others of direct or indirect involvement in the communal riots.
The court stated: “According to the SIT, no offence has been established against any of the persons listed in Zakia Jafri's complaint. Therefore, as per the Supreme Court's order and the principle of natural justice, the complainant has to be given a copy of the report and related documents.”
No notice was needed to be issued to Zakia Jafri as she had already approached the court for a copy of the report. But the court did not make any reference to the copetitioners who sought a copy, including the Mumbai-based Citizens for Justice and Peace, which has been helping the riot victims in the legal battle.
That the SIT had given a clean chit to Modi and others was known in official circles for some time. But it was officially being confirmed by the court for the first time.
Supreme Court’s Monitoring
The SIT, whose investigations into Zakia Jafri’s complaint were monitored by the Supreme Court, has come to the conclusion that no case is made out against the accused. Hence, it has recommended a closure of the case that has already dragged on far too long and achieved nothing apart from slandering Modi and others. In normal circumstances, there would have been no need for a Supreme Court-appointed (and monitored) SIT. But these are not normal circumstances since the Congress, its stooges masquerading as ‘human rights’ activists and a biased media are intent upon pinning blame on Modi for the sheer vicarious pleasure of maligning him as also to demonstrate their ‘secular’ and ‘liberal’ credentials. Also, in normal circumstances this particular case would have come to a closure with the SIT’s report setting aside the allegations.
However, those who have scavenged on the grief and misery of the families of the victims of the 2002 violence for a decade and converted activism into a profitable business will not allow that to happen. They sought to tar the SIT soon after it was set up, fearing their campaign of calumny would be exposed; they have now shown no hesitation in maligning the SIT for telling the truth which is clearly unpalatable to them, not the least because it strips them of their mask.
SIT First Report
Earlier in May 2010, SIT gave a ‘clean chit' to Modi when it submitted to the Supreme Court its first report on the complaint of Zakia Jafri, whose husband Ehsan Jaffri, former Congress MP, was among the 69 persons killed in the Gulberg Housing Society riots in 2002.
The SIT, in its report, said: “In spite of the fact that ghastly and violent attacks had taken place on Muslims at Gulberg Society and elsewhere, the reaction of the government was not the type that would have been expected by anyone. Modi had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation at Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other places by saying that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. However, this utterance by itself is not sufficient to make out a case against Modi.”
On the allegation that there was undue delay in requisitioning and deployment of the Army though anti-minority violence had broken out on February 27, 2002 afternoon itself in Vadodara and Ahmedabad, the report said, “The deployment of the Army commenced with effect from 11 a.m. on March 1, 2002 and the Army [personnel] had taken up their position[s] after being flown in from the forward areas within 21 hours of requisition by the State government.” The allegation that there was undue delay was therefore not established.
It was alleged that Modi did not visit the riot-affected areas in the initial days, though he visited the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002 itself. The report pointed out that Modi himself admitted having visited the station the same day and that he visited Gulberg Society and other affected parts of Ahmedabad only on March 5 and 6, 2002. “This possibly indicates his discriminatory attitude and the allegations stands proved.”
Advantage Modi
The SIT report giving a clean chit to Modi in the Gulberg Society massacre during the 2002 Gujarat riots could not have come at a more appropriate time for Modi, who, by all accounts, has started nursing national ambitions now.
The court ordered that a copy of the SIT report and related documents be given to Zakia Jafri within 30 days giving her the right to pursue her private criminal complaint against Modi and others.
For sometime now, BJP supporters here have been insisting that there is no alternative to projecting Modi as the party’s prime ministerial candidate.
The Gujarat Assembly elections are scheduled for the end of the year, which the supporters firmly believe Modi would win for the third time.
The term of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) President Nitin Gadkari is also coming to an end at almost the same time.
Initially, there was a view that Gadkari would be given a second term. But recent events that brought Gadkari in the news for all the wrong reasons have sealed his fate.
At the same time, it is also common knowledge in BJP circles that the RSS, which eventually decides who should take command of the BJP and which had been backing Gadkari earlier, is also averse to promoting any of the D4 leaders (Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley, M Venkaiah Naidu and Ananth Kumar).
The Sangh has been wary of Modi as well. But sources said that in the present scenario, Modi enjoys TINA (There is no alternative) factor.
Court Convicts Accused
An special court in Anand on April 9 convicted 23 accused and let off as many in a case it described as "rarest of rare." The court held 23 of the 47 accused guilty. One of the accused died during trial. Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (conspiracy) has been applied to all 23 convicted, while 18 have also been convicted of the charge of murder, four of abetment to crime and one of unlawful activities.
According to the prosecution, a 1,500-strong mob gathered in Ode village on March 1, 2002, and started throwing stones and damaging the property of the people in the minority community-dominated Suriewali Bhagol. A handful of policemen present lobbed teargas shells and then opened fire to disperse the mob. The people dispersed, but the death of a boy, Nishith, in the police firing sparked tension.
Twenty-three persons, including nine women and as many children of the minority community, were burnt to death in a house in Pirwali Bhagol area of Ode village by a mob of over 1,500 on March 1, 2002 following the Godhra train burning incident that had triggered communal conflagration across the state.
Earlier, a court had awarded the death sentence to 11 and life term to 20 in the Godhra train burning incident in which 58 persons, mostly kar sevaks, had been killed on February 27, 2002.
Assessment
The court's own decision on the matter — whether to accept or reject the closure report – will doubtless be litigated by one side or the other. But whatever the final view taken by the courts on his individual legal culpability for the tragedy of Gujarat, Modi should know this much. The fact that he remained — at best — a mute spectator to the killing of hundreds of innocent citizens and did nothing to ensure justice for the victims afterwards is a moral and political badge of dishonor that will ensure the higher office his supporters seek for him remains out of reach.
Nevertheless, it is an open secret that the Modi government has remained a mere spectator during post-Godhra carnage pogrom resulting in the destruction of over 500 places of Muslim worship and loss of precious lives for which the Gujarat High Court has indicted the state government only, as reported. In fact, all of our sensible countrymen and women must admit that whatever had happened was a blot on our secular credentials.
Modi may be the latest of the persons in power not doing the right thing in the heat of highly charged riots between communities, whoever the instigator was. It takes statesmanship to show right action even at the cost of personal popularity. I recall then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's counsel at the time to Modi to follow Raj Dharma which was sadly not followed. In addition to Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, none of the leaders since Independence including Indira Gandhi, Kumaraswami Kamaraj, Rajiv Gandhi and others followed this dictum when they faced similar challenges.
As case after case is taken up of that unfortunate period of recent history, it is sad that Modi-led Gujarat Government has not thought it fit to tender a public regret over its failure to prevent such large scale killings. The Gujarat chief minister keeps talking of the need to move on, but would not a public apology go a long way in healing 10-year-old wounds?

Interlinking of Rivers: Supreme Court Forms Panel, Controversies Continue

The Supreme Court has directed the federal government to implement the ambitious interlinking of rivers project in a time-bound manner and appointed a high-powered committee for its planning and implementation.
The river interlinking project was the brainchild of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, which was elected to office in 1998 and was reelected in 1999. In October, 2002, then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had formed a task force to get the project going against the backdrop of the acute drought that year.
A federal-appointed task force had in a report recommended division of the project into two-- the Peninsular component and the Himalayan component.
The Peninsular component-- involving the rivers in southern India-- envisaged developing a 'Southern Water Grid' with 16 linkages. This component included diversion of the surplus waters of the Mahanadi and Godavari to the Pennar, Krishna, Vaigai and Cauvery.
The task force had also mooted the diversion of the west-flowing rivers of Kerala and Karnataka to the east, the interlinking of small rivers that flow along the west coast, south of Tapi and north of Mumbai and interlinking of the southern tributaries of the river Yamuna.
The Himalayan component envisaged building storage reservoirs on the Ganga and the Brahmaputra and their main tributaries both in India and Nepal in order to conserve the waters during the monsoon for irrigation and generation of hydro-power, besides checking floods. The fate of the ambitious Rs 5,00,000 crore project proposing linkages between major rivers by the year 2016 has remained a virtual non-starter and the detailed project report is in cold storage.
Initial Work
At the initial stages, the project “may not involve those states which have sufficient water and are not substantially involved in any interlinking of river program and the projects can be completed without their effective participation.
The apex court made it clear that the Committee “shall be responsible for carrying out the interlinking program. Its decisions shall take precedence over all administrative bodies.”
The committee will be headed by the water resources minister and comprise the ministry secretary, the secretary, environment and forest ministry, the Central Water Commission chief, the water development authority secretary, the water and irrigation minister from each concurring state for a particular project, with their principal secretary, and the chief secretary (or his nominee) of the states involved.
Strict Monitoring
The apex court, which discontinued monitoring as it involved questions on “federalism” better left to be decided by the Union and states, said the panel’s other members would be from among social activists nominated by the water resources and environment and forest ministries.Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, assisting the court in the case since 2002, when it took suo motu notice of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), will also be in the panel as he is well versed with the issue.A three-member bench comprising Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justices A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar ordered: “The committee shall meet at least once in two months, and shall maintain records of its discussions and minutes. It will be entitled to constitute subcommittees as it may deem necessary ... on such terms and conditions as it may deem proper.”The panel was directed to submit biannual reports directly to the Cabinet Secretariat, to be placed before the Cabinet for prompt decisions. The Supreme Court stated: “The Cabinet shall take all final and appropriate decisions... as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 30 days from the date the matter is first placed before its consideration.” All reports submitted to the court so far will also be placed before the committee after it is in place.
Major River Rift

* Krishna-Godavari dispute: Involves Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha
* Cauvery row: Relates to re-sharing of waters between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu
* Ravi-Beas dispute: Involves Punjab and Haryana; started with the reorganization of Punjab in 1966
* Sutlej Yamuna Link canal was to link both Sutlej and Yamuna through a 214-km long canal
* Haryana completed construction of its portion of the canal. Construction stopped on Punjab side since militancy days
* Punjab Government in 2004 passed Termination of Agreements Act that ended all earlier water sharing agreements with neighboring states

Dealing With Dowry Menace

The Supreme Court has recently once again proved itself the saviour of helpless women who are harassed and tortured by greedy men. It has come to the rescue of a hapless woman by ruling that the Anti-Dowry Act and anti-cruelty laws will apply to any man who lives, cohabits and exercises the authority of a husband over any woman, irrespective of whether they are legally married or not.

The Bench consisting of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice A.K. Ganguly has ruled that in cases in which dowry harassment has been alleged or a dowry death has occurred, a man cannot get away by claiming that he is not legally married to the woman.

The judgment came in response to a review petition filed by a man from Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh. Facing charges of harassing his wife under Section 498A Indian Penal Code (IPC), he claimed that since he was earlier married and had never married the complainant in question, the question of dowry harassment would not arise and that he could not be punished under the law. He lost the case in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Interestingly, the Supreme Court refused to go by the strict interpretation of the term “husband” as that would destroy the purpose of the statutory provisions and encourage harassment of a woman over a demand for money.

Death for Guilty Suggested
The apex has rightly suggested death for the guilty in bride burning cases having said that such cases must be dealt with an iron fist. It is of relevance that the National Commission for Women (NWC) had recommended to the Government almost two years ago that there should be harsher penalties for dowry offences.

It is a matter of great concern that cases of bride burning, which are mostly dowry deaths, have risen in the recent past. It is shameful that a large number of women in India suffer mental abuse and physical torture that sometimes lead to their death, all because of the greed of their husbands and in-laws. Though dowry is prohibited by law, it continues to thrive.

Increase in Dowry Cases
In fact, the cases of dowry abuse have increased over the years with its worst form being bride burning. The crime cuts across almost every community in India. The victims are subjected to extreme torture before they are killed by their spouses. Dowry deaths are often claimed by the culprits to be suicides or accidents. This is the reason why the official number of dowry death cases is low.

As per the National Crime Records Bureau report, in 2004 the number of dowry deaths reported was 7,026. It was 6,787 in 2005 and 7,618 in 2006. The cases registered under the Dowry Prohibition Act were 3,592 in 2004, 3,204 in 2005 and 4,504 in 2006. A total of 2,276 female suicides due to dowry disputes were listed in 2006, which is an average of six a day. The real picture might be far grimmer than this.

Dowry Prohibition Act
Undoubtedly the evil that is bride burning cannot be tolerated by any civilised society. It is clear that unless strong measures are taken, the crime can never be eradicated. The existing laws against dowry such as the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, have not proved effective in curbing the menace. Though the law specifically defines the crime of dowry death and there are sections in the IPC that punish cruelty towards brides, bride burning continues unabated. Even the legislation regarding domestic violence has proved toothless.

It can be said that that any sensible person cannot disagree with this judgment as there is a dire need to check increasing cases of harassment of women engaged in live-in relationships. There is need to interpret laws enacted to curb evils like the dowry menace with a certain element of realism.

Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter Case

The Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi received yet another jolt when the Supreme Court directed the Gujarat Government to pay compensation to the next of kin of Sohrabuddin, who was killed in a fake encounter. The Court further stated that payment of compensation could not be delayed any further, and asked why the State Government is using delaying tactics in paying compensation when it has already admitted that it was a fake encounter.

Satisfying Gujarat Government's Attitude
The comment by the apex court clearly indicates that it is not satisfied with the State Government's attitude. The decision about the amount of compensation has been left to the State Government. This was done at the request of the Gujarat Government counsel, but the court ordered that the apex court should be informed of the amount the State Government decides to give to Sohrabuddin's brother.

It is clear that the apex court does not desire to intervene in the State's administrative affairs, but going by the attitude and inclination of the Modi Government, the court desires to keep an eye on the case.

It is worth mentioning that the Gujarat Government had admitted in November 2005 that Sohrabuddin was killed in a fake encounter by the Gujarat Police. Several senior officers were arrested; yet the State Government paid no compensation to the next of kin of Sohrabuddin. Not only was Sohrabuddin killed, his wife Kauser Bi was also murdered, and her dead body was consigned to flames by the state police. Yet, the State Government paid no compensation in any of the cases.

Victims of Communal Riots
The truth is that the State Government continues to avoid payment to victims of communal riots that broke out in the state in wake of the Godhara incident, leading to genocide of Muslims. No one, in fact, knows what happened to the large amount of compensation that was provided by the Union Government for providing relief to riot victims. Muslims in Gujarat continue to complain that they are yet to get any compensation. In this connection, the apex court has admonished the State Government on several occasions. It may, perhaps, be because of this that the apex court also desires to keep an eye on it.

The Supreme Court has also given an indication that it is only happy with the investigation being conducted by Geeta Johri, a DGP of Gujarat cadre, into the involvement of state police officers in the fake encounter. A party to the prosecution, Rubab Sheikh had raised queries on the investigation not being impartial.

As a matter of fact, since the case is being investigated by a police officer of the Gujarat cadre, questions have continued to fly ever since the investigation commenced. It can be easily understood that under the circumstances, the investigation can be influenced. At the same time, the state government may deprive the next of kin of Sohrabuddin of compensation and also attempt to save its police officers.

Hard Attitude Needed
The decision to hand over the investigation to the Special Investigation Team is a welcome one, which may also give a ray of hope of getting justice to other Gujarat riots victims. Cases of fake encounters have alarmingly risen in our country in recent times.

In this regard, it has become necessary for the Government to adopt a hard attitude against such criminal activities of the police. But going by the attitude of the State Government to support its police officers, judiciary needs to adopt a hard stance in such cases. The direction given to the Gujarat Government in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case is evidence of the hard stance adopted by judiciary in such cases.