आपने किस अधिकार से लगाई निकासी पर पाबंदी- गुजरात हाईकोर्ट ने RBI से पूछा

December 7, 2016

अहमदाबाद। नोटबंदी के बाद बैंकों और एटीएम से नोटों की निकासी के लिए सीमा तय किए जाने पर गुजरात हाई कोर्ट ने रिजर्व बैंक से पूछा है कि आखिर किस अधिकार के तहत उसने यह रोक लगाई है। चीफ जस्टिस आर.एस रेड्डी और जस्टिस वीएम पंचोली ने रिजर्व बैंक से यह भी पूछा कि आखिर कैसे डिस्ट्रिक्ट सेंट्रल को-ऑपरेटिव बैंक्स पर पाबंदियां लगा दीं।

अदालत ने कहा कि अथॉरिटीज के पास नोटों को बैन किए जाने की ताकत होती है, लेकिन निकासी की सीमा तय करने का अधिकार कहां है? हाई कोर्ट ने आरबीआई से मंगलवार को इन सवालों के जवाब देने को कहा है।

ईटी के अनुसार, भावनगर जिला सहकारी बैंक के चेयरमैन नानुभाई वाघानी की ओर से अदालत में पेश वकील ने सवाल उठाया था कि न तो आरबीआई ऐक्ट और न ही बैंकिंग नियामक कानूनों में कहीं भी निकासी की सीमा तय करने की बात की गई है। इस पर हाई कोर्ट ने रिजर्व बैंक से इस सवाल का जवाब देने को कहा। कोर्ट ने यह भी कहा कि आरबीआई के पास 14 नवंबर को ऐसा कोई सर्कुलर जारी करने का अधिकार नहीं था, जिसके जरिए जिला सहकारी बैंकों पर पाबंदियां लगा दी गईं। वहीं, केंद्र सरकार ने 8 नवंबर को नोटबंदी की अधिसूचना जारी की थी और सभी पंजीकृत बैंकों को नोट बदलने का अधिकार दिया गया था।

हालांकि 500 और 1000 रुपये के नोटों को बैन किए जाने के केंद्र सरकार के फैसले की संवैधानिक वैधता को चुनौती देने वाली याचिका अभी सुप्रीम कोर्ट के समक्ष लंबित है। ऐसे में हाई कोर्ट ने इस मामले में कोई भी टिप्पणी करने से इनकार कर दिया। इस बीच गुजरात के ही खेड़ा जिले के सहकारी बैंक ने भी पाबंदियों के खिलाफ उच्च न्यायालय में याचिका दायर की है। हाई कोर्ट अब एक साथ ऐसी 3 याचिकाओं पर मंगलवार को सुनवाई करेगा। इस मामले में तीसरी याचिका गुजरात खेदुत हितरक्षक समिति की ओर से दायर की गई है।

जिला सहकारी बैंकों के साथ पक्षपात के अलावा इन याचिकाओं में नोटबंदी के सरकार के तरीके पर भी सवाल खड़े किए गए हैं। याचिकाकर्ताओं ने रिजर्व बैंक ऑफ इंडिया ऐक्ट के सेक्शन 26(2) का हवाला देते हुए कहा है कि सरकार के पास इतने बड़े पैमाने पर नोटबंदी का अधिकार नहीं है। हालांकि वह कुछ निश्चित सीरीज के नोटों का विमुद्रीकरण कर सकती है। इसे भी आरबीआई बोर्ड की ओर से सिफारिश पर ही लागू किया जा सकता है।

Courtesy: National Dastak

बीजेपी नेता 33 लाख के नए नोट और हथियारों के साथ गिरफ्तार

December 7, 2016

कोलकाता। जहां एक तरफ देश के प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी ने कालाधन और भ्रष्टाचार की बात कहकर अचानक 500 और 1000 के नोट बंद कर दिए, वहीं आए दिन उनकी पार्टी के नेता भ्रष्टाचार करते हुए गिरफ्तार हो रहे हैं। ताजा खबर पश्चिम बंगाल के कोलकाता से आई है जहां एक भाजपा का नेता अपने साथियों के साथ 33 लाख के नए नोटों और भारी मात्रा में हथियारों के साथ गिरफ्तार हुआ है।

कोलकाता पुलिस के एसटीएफ की टीम ने गुप्त जानकारी के आधार पर महानगर से सोमवार रात 10 बजे के करीब दुर्गापुर के सात कोल माफिया व प्रमोटर को भारी मात्रा में हथियार के साथ गिरफ्तार किया है। गिरफ्तार आरोपियों में एक स्थानीय भाजपा नेता मनीष शर्मा उर्फ मनीष जोशी उर्फ चिंटू (44) भी शामिल है, जो इस बार अपने क्षेत्र में विधानसभा चुनाव में भाजपा के टिकट पर चुनाव लड़ा था।

इन सभी के पास से कुल 33 लाख रुपये के नये नोट, सात फायर आर्म्स और 89 जिंदा कारतूस बरामद किए गए हैं। गिरफ्तार अन्य आरोपियों में राजेश झा उर्फ राजू (46), लोकेश सिंह (35), कृष्णा मुरारी कायेल उर्फ बिल्लू (44), शायेन मजूमदार उर्फ बाबू (29) पार्थ चटर्जी उर्फ गौतम (41) और शुभम भौमिक (28) हैं। इनके पास से एक इनोवा कार भी जब्त हुई है।

मंगलवार को बैंकशाल कोर्ट में पेश करने पर अदालत ने सभी को नौ दिसंबर तक पुलिस हिरासत में भेज दिया है। ये सभी महानगर में दुर्गापुर से हथियार के साथ महानगर क्या करने आये थे, इस बारे में पूछताछ हो रही है।

कोलकाता पुलिस के संयुक्त पुलिस आयुक्त (एसटीएफ) विशाल गर्ग ने बताया कि फरीदपुर इलाके में कत्ल के मामले में इसमें से तीन आरोपी वांटेड हैं। इसके अलावा एक आरोपी पहले भी नकली नोट के साथ गिरफ्तार हो चुका है। महानगर में हथियार व इतनी बड़ी रकम के साथ ये सभी क्या करने आये थे, इस बारे में सभी से पूछताछ हो रही है।

पुलिस को आशंका है कि किसी बड़ी साजिश को अंजाम देने के पहले प्लानिंग करने के लिए ही ये सभी महानगर में इकट्ठे हुए थे। इनसे पूछताछ में कई बड़े खुलासे हो सकते हैं। वहीं, पुलिस सूत्रों का कहना है कि अपने इलाके में किसी बड़ी वारदात को अंजाम देने यह महानगर से हथियार खरीदने यहां आ सकते हैं। किसी से रुपये बदलवाने यहां सभी आये थे या नहीं, इस बारे में भी इनसे पूछताछ हो रही है।

पुलिस आरोपियों के पास से मिले पैसों के स्त्रोत की जांच कर रही है। आरोपियों के पास से 2000 के नए नोट के साथ 50 और 100 रुपए के नोट मिले हैं। वहीं, 2 लाख रुपए के सभी नोट सीरीज में होने के कारण पुलिस को शंका है कि रकम किसी बैंक से निकाली गई है।

वहीं पश्चिम बंगाल बीजेपी अध्यक्ष दिलीप घोष ने सफाई देते हुए कहा कि पार्टी मनीष शर्मा के साथ नहीं खड़ी है। उन्हें अपनी बेगुनाही साबित करनी होगी। घटना की निष्पक्ष जांच होनी चाहिए।

Courtesy: National Dastak

Marx, Gandhi and Modernity – Essays Presented to Javeed Alam

December 7, 2016

Professor Prabhat Patnaik's short piece on Javeed Alam.

For people of my generation, Javeed Alam had become a legend in the 1970s. His marriage to Jayanti, following their Sapru House romance,had been seized by the Jan Sangh (as it then was called) to whip up a smirch campaign all over Delhi about how a Muslim youth had abducted a Hindu girl. Posters had suddenly appeared everywhere asking ‘Where is Jayanti?’, as if she had been abducted. The Left political parties in the city and teachers of the Delhi University, led by Kumaresh Chakravarty, stood rock solid behind Javeed. The situation became so explosive that a meeting had to be arranged between the young couple and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi herself, at which Jayanti told her in person that she had married Javeed of her own free will. Normalcy returned only after Salwan College, where Javeed had been teaching, rescinded its order terminating his services because of the struggle carried out by the Delhi University Teachers’ Association. Javeed’sand Jayanti’s incredible fortitude during the crisis impressed and moved us all.

I was resident abroad at the time, but news of this incident and of the remarkable young couple at the centre of it had filtered through even to the cloisters of Oxbridge. When my wife Utsa and I returned to India in 1973 to take up teaching assignments at the newly created Centre for Economic Studies and Planning of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, and decided to visit Chail during a summer break shortly thereafter, it was but natural that I should plan a ‘pilgrimage’ to Shimla across the hills to visit this incredible person, by then an icon of the Left, who was teaching at the Himachal University at the time, and his equally extraordinary wife.

My ‘pilgrimage’ itself was, in retrospect, quite amazing. All I had been told by our common friend, Rajendra Prasad, in Delhi was that Javeed lived ‘somewhere in Kaithu’. I took a bus from Chail to Shimla in the morning and walked all over Kaithu for two and a half hours before coming to a house that looked promising (because, as the neighbours informed me, some ‘university teacher’ lived there), only to find that nobody was at home. After a further wait of an hour and a half, Javeed finally turned up with his family and I introduced myself. I have never got along so well with anybody within seconds of the first meeting. It was as if we had been close friends all our lives. Rajendra Prasad’s remark to me before we had started, ‘You will like Javeed’, was a gross understatement!

After that first meeting, our visits to Shimla became more frequent. Once Javeed had booked us into the Shimla Kali Bari on top of the Ridge, where, as one would expect, there was an acute shortage of water. It was often that the Patnaik family would troop down to his house for a bath. It was also by no means infrequent for the Alam family to drop in at the Kali Bari for a fish-curry lunch (his son Aniket, known to all Javeed’s friends by his Bengali pet name Mishtoo, being extremely fond of food as a child). And all this was quite apart from our convivial meetings in Kaithu every evening. On another occasion when we stayed at the University Guest House at Summerhill, I remember the long daily walks by the two families from Kaithu to Summerhill with my son Nishad perched on Javeed’s shoulder, and their
seeing us off into the quaint little Kalka-bound train at the end of our visit.

What drew me to Javeed was not just his passion for ideas and for intense discussions, or even the closeness of our views; it was above all his total guilelessness, his absolute straightforwardness and honesty. One instance of this guileless honesty readily comes to mind. Some of us were visiting China as part of a Social Scientist delegation under the leadership of Professor Irfan Habib, the renowned historian. As is customary on such occasions, each side had to present its views on a range of subjects. Irfan Saheb discussed with us one night what he, as the leader of the delegation, was going to say the next morning. When it was Javeed’s turn to express his opinion on the proposed speech, he said with his usual candour and artlessness: ‘Whatever you say, be coherent!’ After a moment of startled silence, all of us burst out laughing; Irfan Saheb’s laughter was the loudest and he loved Javeed all the more for
that remark.

With Javeed there were never any half-measures. Joining the Party (the Communist Party of India [Marxist]) for him was not just paying his levy in time and dabbling occasionally in teachers’ politics while being primarily engaged in the usual ‘small change’ of academic life. He threw himself body and soul into Party work in Himachal Pradesh, and was greatly responsible for building up the CPI(M) in that state, where it has a notable presence to this day. In the process he faced much unpleasantness and victimization from the authorities in that state, dominated as it is by Hindutva forces.

Kolkata, which was Jayanti’s home city and where he moved for a while from Shimla, and later Hyderabad, Javeed’s own home base where he spent his last teaching years at the Central Institute for English and Foreign Languages (CIEFL) and where he finally settled, brought some respite from this unpleasantness. But his enthusiasm for Party work never waned, not even when, as a sensitive, creative and extremely thoughtful Marxist, he developed misgivings about some aspects of the theory of organizational structure and the associated mode of functioning of the traditional Communist parties. At a seminar held in Columbia University, New York in 2010, where several persons from the Indian Left were participating, Javeed was the only one who was forthright in declaring his political adherence to a Communist Party. When I was working for a while at the Kerala State Planning Board, Javeed was for me a valuable source of support and ever willing to lend his services to the Left-led state government, until of course his assuming the Chairmanship of the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) made it impossible.

It was typical of Javeed that when he was retiring from the CIEFL and was offered an extension, while a distinguished colleague with whom he had well-known intellectual and political differences was not, he promptly turned it down, stating that he would accept the extension offer only if the colleague was made a similar offer. The nobility underlying that gesture, which very few in the academic world are capable of making, is inherited, some would say, from his father Alam Khundmiri, who was so influenced by the purity of a pir that he even took over his name for himself. But perhaps
it also derives from Javeed’s total intellectual and emotional commitment to the cause of human emancipation.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

On Ambedkar’s 60th death anniversary, media proved that he was Untouchable in death as in life

December 7, 2016

There was precious little about the icon in the newspapers or on mainstream websites on Tuesday.

Ambedkar

I wish to use the word Untouchable, with the U capitalised, with the unambiguous coldness with which Dr BR Ambedkar used it in his speeches and writings to describe a regime of systemic horror that most people of the subcontinent have learnt to live with for centuries. A system that saw – and sees – Ambedkar (and every Untouchable) as inexistent. As December 6, the sixtieth anniversary of his death passed us fairly quietly, I wish to think out loud about why to most Indians the appellation Untouchable comes so easily when they think of Ambedkar.

The more serious charge is that they don’t even think about him. Not on the day he died, not on the day he was born, nor on the day he was reborn with half a million fellow Untouchables. He is both emotionally and intellectually absent from the hearts and heads of most Indians who regard themselves as Touchable, and yet oddly shy away from the touch or shadow of Ambedkar.

On the morning of December 6, I opened newspapers and the daily digests of online sites to see if there had been an op-ed or essay on the man whom the writer, poet and translator Jerry Pinto described as the only alumnus of Columbia University who returned home and invented a nation. The three papers I subscribe to – The Indian Express, The Hindu and Hindustan Times – carried nothing on him except government-issued advertisements with the smile of Narendra Modi next to a picture of a benign-looking Babasaheb.

The new Manu

In the nationalist imagination, Ambedkar has come to occupy the same space that Bhakti saints such as Chokhamela have in the minds of some casteist people. These were the saints Ambedkar denounced. In certain imaginations, he appears to share the space occupied by mythological figures like Shambuka and Karna. He’s been called, without any irony, the new Manu. And yet he means mostly nothing to the Touchables.

The amorphous anything-goes we call Hinduism, especially its currently dominant Hindutva variety, is a marvellous sword-swallower. It packages Ambedkar, who vehemently attacked Hinduism with the matchless scimitar of his mind, as one of its own. He is on the verge of becoming a Bhakti sant, much of his radicalism blunted. Just like the Buddha was claimed as the ninth avatar of Vishnu, the day may not be far, some fear, when Ambedkar may be regarded the eleventh avatar of Vishnu (since we have had claimants for Kalki already). It has also been argued that protean Brahmanism, using the highhanded apparatus of footnotes, can slay an utterly seditious idea like annihilation of caste.

All those who allow themselves the luxury of letting an occasion like December 6 pass unremarked and unnoticed – each of those that casually and habitually disregards the existence of Babasaheb Ambedkar (by not planning anything for December 6) – practices some form of untouchability, and each would be touchy about being told so. These include The Hindu, the Hindustan Times, even Kafila that asks us to run from the big media or Raiot that says it is challenging the consensus. It seems that they would rather let the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its now-formidable machinery twist Ambedkar than offer a genuine and wide-ranging engagement with the man and his ideas. On December 6, at least till about 4 pm,the mainstream corporate/ family-owned/venture capital-driven English-language media, hardly featured any appraisals of what his life and ideas mean to us. If you wanted any of that, you have to turn to the newly formed conclaves of independent, online Dalit media.

At best, some so-called enlightened platforms may carry reports on the nearly ten lakh people who gather at the memorial Chaitya Bhoomi, largely Dalits from Maharashtra but increasingly from all over India and the world. When I spoke to an editor at Scroll, he said they would be carrying reports from Chaitya Bhoomi about how Dalits who gathered there viewed demonetisation. That, of course, is newsy.

Easy excuses

But should not an anniversary such as this give the Touchables, who know shamefully little about Ambedkar, an opportunity to know more about him and the people who respect him? For six decades, there has been little reportage, not to speak of narrative journalism or books, on how this one icon draws over a million people to arrive peacefully into a crowded city like Mumbai, perambulate around the stupa of his consciousness, and leave without incident. Who are these people? What are their stories? How and why does Babasaheb inspire them? How do millions of books without ISBN numbers sell at the over 200 makeshift stalls that come up for two days? What is their economy? Why do we get to see and read so much literature on the many Kumbh Melas and so little on this sea of humanity that gathers every December 6 in Mumbai and around October 14, the day of the Ambedkar-led mass conversion, at Nagpur?

True, Jayalalithaa’s death had been finally announced at a strategically chosen time – 11.30 pm on December 5 – by when all obituaries and profiles of her, likely kept ready and neatly laid out for over two months, would be quickly updated and sent to print. I knew she would easily edge Ambedkar out today, Ambedkar the Untouchable who is anyway used to being overlooked in both life and death.

Jayalalithaa is but an excuse. Dates like December 6, April 14, May 15 (when Annihilation of Caste was first published in 1936) or the Khairlanji anniversary (September 29) have barely made a dent on the consciousness of the Touchables. There will be many savarna left-liberals who’ll know about Trayvon Martin but would have to ask Google about who Ilavarasan is. When two Dalits are murdered and six Dalit women are raped every day, it is easy to forget names and dates.

S. Anand has annotated and published BR Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste and Riddles in Hinduism.

Courtesy: Scroll.in

ब्लैकमनी पर मोदी सरकार के दोहरे मापदंड मंत्रियों को शाहखर्ची की छूट, आम आदमी पर लगाम

December 7, 2016

पूर्व आईएस अफसर ईएएस शर्मा ने मोदी सरकार में बैठे मंत्रियों और वीवीआईपी की ओर से अपने यहां के शादी समारोहों में धन के भौंडे प्रदर्शन पर नाराजगी व्यक्त करते हुए पीएम को पत्र लिखा है। उन्होंने मोदी से यह जानना चाहा है‌ कि क्या उनकी सरकार में लोगों के लिए दोहरे मापदंड हैं। क्या उनकी सरकार में एनडीए के मंत्रियों के लिए एक नियम और आम भारतीय नागरिक के ल‌िए दूसरा नियम है। क्या इनकम टैक्स प्रवर्तन निदेशालय नोटबंदी के बाद के सप्ताहों में हुए आलीशान शादी समारोहों समारोहों में की जांच करेगा?

शर्मा ने खास तौर पर उन खबरों (हिन्दुस्तान टाइम्स, रविवार 4 दिसंबर) की ओर पीएम का ध्यान खींचा है, जिनमें कहा गया है क‌ि नीत‌‌िन गडकरी की बेटी की शादी में मेहमानों को ले जाने के लिए 50 चार्टर्ड प्लेन लगाए जाएंगे। इसी तरह एक ओर शादी समारोह में संस्कृति मंत्री महेश शर्मा की ओर से किए गए धुआंधार खर्चे के बारे में भी उन्हें याद दिलाया गया है। ई ए एस शर्मा ने पूछा है कि क्या मोदी के नजदीकी लोगों के ल‌िए एक न‌ियम है और आम लोगों के ल‌िए दूसरा। भारत सरकार के पूर्व सचिव की चिट्ठी में कहा गया है कि मोदी कैबिनेट मंत्री राजनाथ सिंह और भाजपा अध्यक्ष अमित शाह महेश शर्मा की ओर से आयोजित आलीशान समारोह में मौजूद थे।

ईएएस शर्मा ने प्रवर्तन निदेशालय और सीबीआई से इस तरह के खर्चीले समारोहों की पूरी छानबीन की मांग की है। उन्होंने जानना चाहा है कि इस तरह के भड़कीले और खर्चीले शादी और अन्य समारोहों में आरएसएस और बीजेपी के कौन ऐसे प्रभावशाली लोग हैं, जिन्होंने इसमें हिस्सा लिया था।

उन्होंने पीएम को लिखी अपनी चिट्ठी में कहा है कि अगर उन्होंने कोई कार्रवाई नहीं की तो वह कानूनी रास्ता अख्तियार करने पर मजबूर होंगे। गौरतलब है कि भारत सरकार के पूर्व सचिव और अब रिटायर्ड आईएएस अफसर ने 12 नवंबर और 16 नवंबर को पीएम को ल‌िखी चिट्ठी में बेनामी लैंड होल्ड‌िंग और ब्लैकमनी के अन्य रूपों को काबू करने की मांग की थी। उन्होंने ल‌िखा था कि इस तरह के मामलों में कड़ी कार्रवाई करने की जरूरत है क्योंकि अघो‌ष‌ित आय का सिर्फ छह फीसदी है कैश के तौर पर है। बाकी का काला धन रियल एस्टेट और अन्य मूल्यवान चीजों के तौर पर छिपा कर रखा गया है।

उन्होंने अपनी चिट्ठ‌ियों में फॉरेन कंट्रीब्यूशन रेग्यूलेशन एक्ट (एफसीआर एक्ट) पर सत्तारुढ़ बीजेपी के ढकोसले की भी आलोचना की थी। उन्होंने लिखा था एक राजनीतिक पार्टी के तौर पर खुद को मिले चंदे की स्वीकृति के लिए बीजेपी ने पिछली डेट से इस नियम को कार्यपालिका के आदेश से लागू कर दिया। उन्होंने सार्वजन‌िक बैंकों की भूम‌िका पर सवाल उठाया था और भारतीय स्टेट बैंक की ओर अडानी को भारी-भरकम लोन की स्वीकृति का ज‌िक्र क‌ि या था। अडानी पीएम नरेंद्र मोदी को फंड मुहैया कराने वाले प्रमुख समर्थकों में शामिल हैं। यहां तक क‌ि पीएम के साथ विदेश यात्राओं में वह भी होते हैं।

शर्मा ने पीएम को भेजी चिट्ठी में कहा है सरकार की ओर से 500 और 1000 के पुराने नोटों को बंद करने की योजना को जिस बुरे तरीके से अंजाम दिया है उससे लोगों की दिक्कतों की कल्पना नहीं की जा सकती। नोटबंदी की वजह से जो कैश क्राइसिस पैदा हुई उसमें कइयों ने अपनी शादियों के कार्यक्रम स्थग‌ित कर द‌िए। कई शाद‌ियां टूट गईं। लेक‌िन जी. जर्नादन रेड्डी, महेश शर्मा और गडकरी को कोई दिक्कत नहीं हुई। क्यों? इसलिए उन्हें बीजेपी और एनडीए के दिग्गजों का वरद हस्त प्राप्त है। मोदी के मंत्री इस तरह की शाहखर्ची में व्यस्त हैं। दूसरी ओर मोदी हर चुनावी सभा में कह रहे हैं कि जनता नोटबंदी के जरिये काला धन न‌ि कालने के अभियान में पूरा सहयोग कर रही है और बैंकों की लाइन में खड़े होकर पूरा समर्थन कर रही है।

लेकिन सरकार के मंत्री और वीवीआईपी न सिर्फ अपने धन का भौंडा प्रदर्शन कर रहे हैं बल्कि जनता का मजाक उड़ा रहे हैं। मोदी जी क्या हम एक सभ्य समाज में रह रहे हैं?

शर्मा ने इन मंत्रियों और वीवीआईपी की ओर से खर्च किए गए एक-एक रुपये के स्त्रोत की जांच करने की मांग की है। साथ ही उन्होंने प्रवर्तन निदेशालय के निदेशक कर्नल सिंह को पत्र लिख कर इस ओर ध्यान दिलाया है।

नरेंद्र मोदी को लिखी शर्मा की यह चिट्ठी यहां पढ़ी जा सकती है-

प्रिय प्रधानमंत्री जी
मैं आपको आज हिन्दुस्तान टाइम्स में छपी एक रिपोर्ट की कतरन भेज रहा हूं। इसमें कहा गया है कि आपके मंत्री नीतिन गडकरी की बेटी की शादी में वीवीआईपी मेहमानों को नागपुर लाने के लिए 50 चार्टर्ड प्लेन लगाए जाएंगे। दूसरी खबर टाइम्स ऑफ इंडिया की है जिसमें कहा गया है कि कैश की कमी की वजह से कई परिवारों ने शादियां रोक दी हैं।

साफ है कि एनडीए के मंत्रियों के लिए अलग नियम और मानदंड हैं। (कृपया प्रवर्तन निदेशलय को भेजे मेरे पत्र को पढ़िये, जिसमें मैंने केंद्र में संस्कृति मंत्री महेश शर्मा की ओर से ऐसे ही खर्चीले शादी-समारोह आयोजित करने का जिक्र किया है) और आम लोगों के लिए अलग।

कैश क्राइसिस के इस दौर में कई परिवारों ने शादियां टाल दी हैं। कई शादियां टूट गई हैं और लेकिन जीआई रेड्डी, महेश शर्मा और गडकरी को कोई दिक्कत नहीं हुई। क्यों? इसलिए उन्हें बीजेपी और एनडीए के दिग्गजों का वरदहस्त प्राप्त है। आपके मंत्री इस तरह की शाहखर्ची में व्यस्त हैं। दूसरी ओर क्या यह विडंबना नहीं है कि आप हर चुनावी सभा में नोटबंदी के समर्थन के लिए लाइन में लगी जनता का धन्यवाद कर रहे हैं। उसके समर्थन पर आभार जता रहे हैं।

मेरे जैसे बैंक की लाइन में लगे हर शख्स को लग रहा है कि आपके इरादे बेहद नेक हैं और नोटबंदी के फैसले से पैदा होने वाली दिक्कतें थोड़े दिनों की हैं जिन्हें बरदाश्त किया जा सकता है। लेकिन हमें यह भी लग रहा है कि जीआई रेड्डी, महेश शर्मा और गडकरी जैसे लोग लाइन में खड़े क्यों नहीं हैं। ऊपर से जले पर नमक छिड़कने के लिए वे लोगों के सामने अपने धन का भौंडा प्रदर्शन कर रहे हैं।

मोदी जी, ऐसे माहौल को देख कर क्या यह सवाल करने के मन नहीं करता कि क्या हम एक सभ्य समाज में रह रहे हैं।

मैंने प्रवर्तन निदेशालय से इन मंत्रियों और वीवीआईपी की ओर से खर्च किए गए एक-एक रुपये के स्त्रोत की जांच करने की मांग की है। उनके खर्चों के हरेक पहलू की जांच की जाए। लेकिन मुझे लगता नहीं है कि प्रवर्तन निदेशालय के पास निष्पक्ष जांच करने का अधिकार या इच्छाशक्ति है। क्योंकि मैंने आपके मुख्यमंत्रियों के कई विदेशी खातों के बारे में जानकारी दी थी लेकिन केंद्रीय जांच एजेंसियों की ओर से अब तक इस दिशा में कोई जांच नहीं हुई।

मुझे नहीं लगता कि पश्चिमी देशों में होने वाली शादी में 50 चार्टर्ड प्लेनों की मदद ली जाती होगी। लेकिन गडकरी जी की बेटी की शादी में ऐसा होने जा रहा है। क्या इन विमानों का खर्चा कॉरपोरेट हाउसों ने उठाया है। ये कॉरपोरेट हाउस कौन हैं। उनकी गडकरी जी से क्या साठगांठ है। नागपुर में गडकरी जी के नाम फाइव स्टार होटलों के कितने कमरे बुक किए गए हैं। मेहमानों के लाने ले जाने के लिए कितने एयरकंडीशंड कारों का इंतजाम किया गया है। इसका खर्चा किसने उठाया है। शादी समारोह में कितना खर्च हुआ है।

क्या गडकरी और उनके सहयोगियों ने नोटबंदी की वजह से लंबी लाइनों के इस दौर में बैंकों और एटीएम की लाइनों में लग कर शादी समारोह में होने वाले खर्चे के लिए रुपये निकाले हैं।

क्या सीनियर इनकम टैक्स अफसरों ने इस शादी में मेहमान बनने को राजी होकर अपने पद के साथ अन्याय किया है। इस शादी में शामिल होकर इस शाहखर्ची का समर्थन करने वाले एनडीए, आरएसएस और भाजपा के वीवीआईपी कौन हैं।

श्रीमान मोदी , इन सभी पहलुओं की पूरी जांच कराने की जरूरत है।

मैं इस पत्र की एक कॉपी केंद्रीय राजस्व सचिव हसमुख अढिया को भी भेज रहा हूं ताकि वह भी गडकरी जी के बेटी की शादी के खर्चों की जांच की जरूरत महसूस करें। ऐसे वक्त में जब राजस्व विभाग छोटे ज्वैलर्स और कांट्रेक्टरों को काले धन के नाम पर कस रहा है तो इस तरह की जांच जरूरी है।

मेरा मानना है कि हमारे जैसे लोकतंत्र में ऊंचे स्तर पर बैठे लोगों के यहां होने वाली शादियों में इस तरह के खर्च पर सवाल उठना लाजिमी है। मेरा मानना है कि सीबीडीटी और ईडी को इनकी जांच कर इसे रिपोर्ट करना चाहिए। इनकम टैक्स डिपार्टमेंट ने बेटी की शादी में भारी खर्च करने वाले रेड्डी को जो क्लीन चिट दी है उसे जनता अभी पचा नहीं पाई है। ऐसे कदमों से नोटबंदी का फैसले के संदर्भ में आपकी सरकार की विश्वसनीयता जम नहीं पा रही है।

अगर आप मेरी चिट्ठी के बाद जांच के कदम नहीं उठाते हैं तो मुझे न्यायिक हस्तक्षेप के लिए कदम उठाना होगा। क्योंकि देश के हर नागरिक को गवर्नेंस पर बुनियादी सवाल उठाने का हक है।

मैं इस पत्र को जनता के बीच विमर्श के लिए प्रसारित कर रहा रहूं ताकि नोटबंदी के इस दौर में शाहखर्ची और धन को भौंडे प्रदर्शन पर एनडीए के रुख पर देश में बहस हो सके।

ई ए एस शर्मा
पूर्व सचिव, भारत सरकार (विशाखापट्टनम)

Rural Women Are Increasingly Accessing Government Hospitals

December 7, 2016

There was a 24% rise in rural women accessing public healthcare between 2004 and 2014, according to a new report by Brookings India, a think tank, significant in a country where half the rural population uses private healthcare, which is four times costlier.

Overall, there was a 6% rise in dependence on public healthcare for out-patients and 7% for in-patients over the decade ending 2014, said the Brookings report, which analysed National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) data over this period.

An in-patient is formally admitted for at least one night to a hospital, while an out-patient visits a hospital, clinic, or associated facility for diagnosis or treatment.

For out-patient care, 74.9% of ailing patients (who sought care) exclusively accessed a private facility in 2014, compared to 79.7% in 2004. The biggest decrease was seen among rural women, as we said. While 78.2% of them sought private care in 2004, 70.4% did in 2014.

Source: Brookings India, based on National Sample Survey Office data

In-patients depend less on the private sector than do out-patients, the data reveal.

The percentage of in-patients seeking public care increased from 42.3% in 2004 to 45.4% in 2014; the percentage of rural women accessing public care rose from 45.1% in 2004 to 56.1% in 2014.

Source: Brookings India, based on National Sample Survey Office data

“The number of people seeking private healthcare, however, might be an underestimation, as NSSO surveyors are instructed to mark all those who went to both government and private facilities as “only going to government facilities,” said the Brookings report.

Indians spend eight times more in a private hospital than a government hospital, according to this analysis of National Health Accounts (NHA) 2013-14 data by The Hindu.

Quality of care biggest constraint for not accessing public hospitals

Despite the decline in exclusive dependence on private care, 29 of every 1,000 Indians pointed to the unsatisfactory quality of healthcare, the most commonly cited reason for not accessing a public hospital.

Long waiting periods at government health services appears to be an increasing bottleneck in seeking public care. In 2004, 6.8 of every 1,000 cited this as a reason for not using a public hospital; it rose to 18.6 in 2014.

Of 930,000 doctors in India, 11.4% (106,000) work for the government. This means there is one government doctor for every 11,528 people, according to the National Health Profile 2015, IndiaSpend reported in November 2016.

Public-health centers across India’s rural areas–25,308 in 29 states and seven union territories–are short of more than 3,000 doctors, the scarcity rising 200% (or tripling) over 10 years, IndiaSpend reported in February 2016.

Source: Brookings India

More people required medical care over a decade

The number of people not using medical services fell from 15.1 in every 1,000 in 2004 to 12.4 in 2014, which implies an 18% increase in Indians seeking some form of healthcare.

There was an increase, however, in the proportion of people not seeking services, as they felt their ailment wasn’t serious enough, and more women than men report not using healthcare due to the same reason–the gender gap has widened over the decade.

More Indian men are likely to be admitted to hospital during the last moments of life than women–62.5% to 37.5%, IndiaSpend reported in November 2016. For every 1,000 men whose death is certified by medical professionals, the corresponding figure for women is 600.

Source: Brookings India

The number of people not using healthcare due to financial reasons reduced from four of every 1,000 in 2004 to 0.7 in 2014, said the Brookings report, possibly a result of rising incomes or use of publicly funded health-insurance schemes implemented over the last 10 years by the central and state governments.

About 12% of the urban and 13% of the rural population got health insurance through the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (National Health Insurance Scheme) or similar plans, IndiaSpend reported in July 2015.

(Saha is an MA Gender and Development student at Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.)

This article was firs published on India Spend

With Asthana as Interim CBI Chief, CBI Resembles the Gujarat Bureau of Investigation

December 6, 2016

With Sharma, Modi and now Asthana, the CBI is filled with acquiescent officers, comfortable to the Modi regime

With the PMO (prime minister’s office) appointing Rakesh Asthana, a Gujarat cadre IPS officer, as the interim director of the Central Bureau of Investigation—violating rules and norms—that has already attracted legal action challenging the move, the Delhi-based CBI today resembles a ‘little Gujarat’ or the Gujarat Bureau of Investigation! Last year, Arun Kumar Sharma, an India Police Service officer from the 1987 batch, with a controversial record was transferred to the CBI as one of its joint directors. Not only that, showing a clear ‘conflict of interest’, YC Modi who was part of the Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation tream (SIT) headed by none less than lack lustre former Director, RK Raghavan, was also brought in by Narendra Modi to the CBI last year. [While, according to the CBI website the former is in charge of the BS&F Zone: BS&F Delhi. BS&F Kolkata, BS&F Mumbai, BS&F Bangalore, the latter is AC(HQ)-I Zone, AC(HQ)-I Zone, SC(HQ) Zone, Mumbai Zone, Hyderabad Zone, Bhopal Zone]]

On December 6, a Public-Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court on Monday seeking quashing of government's decision of appointing Rakesh Asthana, a Gujarat cadre IPS officer, as the interim director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The PIL also seeks appointment of a Court-selected person as the interim Director of CBI as well as a meeting of the selection committee, which consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the largest Opposition party and the Chief Justice of India, to appoint a regular director of the probe agency.

Gujarat-cadre 1984 batch officer Rakesh Asthana's elevation as interim director of CBI has been termed as one of a series of steps by the Centre taken in a “completely mala fide, arbitrary and illegal manner to ensure that Asthana was given the charge of CBI director“. As per the plea, the government did not convene a meeting of the selection committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the largest opposition party and the chief justice of India, even though it was fully aware that Anil Sinha was going to demit the office of CBI director on December 2.

The PIL further states that the government took a series of steps in a "completely mala fide,arbitrary and illegal manner to ensure that Rakesh Asthana was given the charge of CBI Director and "prematurely curtailed the tenure of and transferred Mr. R K Dutta,Special Director, CBI, to the Ministry of Home Affairs". The PIL has been filed by Kamal Kant Jaswal, the president of Delhi based Common Cause through his counsel Prashant Bhushan.

The PIL cited the landmark judgment in Vineet Narain case in which the court had directed that there should be a selection committee to identify a panel of names for the appointment of Director CBI, and thereafter the final selection to be made by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC).The PIL also cited that the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, , which governs the CBI, was amended in 2003 vide the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act, 2003 to state that the Director CBI shall be appointed by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, the Vigilance Commissioners and two Secretaries to the Government of India.

"As the above mechanism was not found sufficient to insulate the CBI Director, Section 4A of the DSPE Act, 1946 was further amended vide the Lokpal andLokayuktas Act, 2013 (the Lokpal Act) to provide that the CBI Director shall be appointed by the Central Government on there commendations of the selection committee," the PIL read.

The central government had last week made Asthana, a Gujarat cadre 1984 batch IPS officer, the interim director as the current chief probe agency Anil Sinha relinquished his charge. The decision came two days after CBI Special Director R K Dutta, who was among the frontrunners for the top post, was shifted to the Home Ministry as a Special Secretary leaving the agency without a director for the first time in 10 years. The move has been speculated to be aimed at making it easy for Asthana to slip into this powerful position!

Asthana,who was serving as the additional director of the probe agency had previously headed the state SIT that probed burning of Sabarmati Express train at Godhra in February 2002. The SIT had then found that the burning of a coach of Sabarmati Express, which claimed lives of 59 people, was a "carefully planned and meticulously executed criminal conspiracy".

Caged Modi Parrot, the CBI ?
The Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) fond of using the ‘caged parrot’ analogy for the CBI when several investigations against BJP strongman Amit Shah were launched by the agency under the orders of the Supreme Court of India (in and around 2010), appears to have no qualms of getting amenable officers into the powerful federal agency.

Scroll. In had reported how the Central Bureau of Investigation was then under pressure to hand over its highly sensitive Policy Division to the Gujarat police official whose name featured in the Ishrat Jahan encounter as well as the case involving the alleged spying on a woman architect when Narendra Modi was the chief minister of the state, highly placed officials said.

Arun Kumar Sharma, an India Police Service officer from the 1987 batch, was transferred to the CBI as one of its joint directors in April 2015. But he was not given any charge for a while. According to highly placed officials, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sent a clear signal to the CBI that Sharma should be given the charge of the Policy Division. But CBI director Anil Sinha, who is opposed to the idea, has refused to do this. Now with Asthana in the driver's seat, a change as per Modi's wishes could well take place.

The CBI insiders see in these Modi’s moves attempts to establish a direct channel with the supposedly autonomous investigative agency. “For a Prime Minister who has established his own direct link in different ministries through the secretary and joint secretary level officials bypassing ministers, it is only natural to try opening up a direct channel with the CBI bypassing its director,” said a CBI official.

Encounter case
Sharma’s name had appeared on a CD purporting to contain details of discussions between top Gujarat leaders and police officials to derail the investigations into the Gujarat police killing of Mumbai college student Ishrat Jahan in 2004. They claimed that she and the three men shot dead with her were on their way to Gujarat to kill Modi. The CD, which was submitted to the CBI by chargesheeted police officer GL Singhal, contained details of a meeting between Modi’s personal secretary GC Murmu, Sharma and a few other Gujarat ministers and policemen.

Sharma also featured in the claimed operation to illegally snoop on a young woman architect from Bangalore in 2009. The snooping had reportedly been ordered by minister of state for home Amit Shah for his “saheb”. Neither Amit Shah nor any of the police officials involved in the snooping operation has come out to explain who this “sahib” is. According to a senior BJP official in Gujarat, Sharma was very close to Modi when he was the state chief minister. Before being appointed as the CBI joint director in April, he headed Ahmedabad Detection of Crime Branch as special commissioner, a post created for the first time. Sharma, an IPS officer was IG (Intelligence) in the state in 2013 when Cobrapost and Gulail.com report on what has come to be known as ‘Snoopgate.’ Audiotapes released in the public domain claimed that the Gujarat police was used to conduct illegal surveillance on the movement of a Bangalore-based architect of Gujarati origin. Amit Shah was allegedly overseeing this surveillance

The Outlook had also reported last year how old loyalists from Gujarat were and are being rewarded with the bureau’s top posts; it won’t be long before one of them becomes director. “Can a prime minister or ruling party be faulted for stuffing a ‘caged bird’ with men they trust, notwithstanding their public pronouncements to the contrary? The answer lies in the shrugs and knowing smiles CBI insiders give you in response to the appointment of Y.C. Modi as additional director and Arun Kumar Sharma as joint director at India’s “premier investigation agency” in the last two months.

Belonging to the Assam-Meghalaya cadre, Y.C. Modi was part of the CBI team which investigated the Haren Pandya murder case. Pandya, a former home minister of Gujarat and a political rival of Narendra Modi, was gunned down in a park in Gandhinagar by alleged extremists in 2003. Pandya’s family, however, pointed fingers elsewhere and accused the CBI of derailing the investigation. The investigation by the CBI in the Haren Pandya case has been criticised by the Gujarat High Court.

The Gujarat High Court in 2011 acquitted 12 persons in the Pandya murder case and criticised the CBI for a “botched-up and blinkered investigation”. The judgement went on to these scathing words: “The investigating officers concerned ought to be held accountable for their ineptitude resulting in injustice, huge harassment of many persons concerned and enormous waste of public resources and time of the courts”.

The officer’s Gujarat connection was renewed in 2010 when he was inducted into the Special Investigation Team headed by former CBI director R.K. Raghavan to investigate the Gujarat riots. Giving a clean chit to the then Gujarat CM, the SIT felt there was not enough evidence to prove that Narendra Modi had either not done enough to stop the post-Godhra riots or had given oral instructions to officers to do nothing to stop the rampaging mobs. Was it a curious coincidence, the magazine had asked that YC Modi had investigated the three most important cases involving the post-Godhra violence, namely Gulberg society, Naroda Patiya and Naroda Gaam. The SIT investigation into these cases has been found to be far from professional by the Courts. Modi was also involved in the famed Zakia Jafri investigation in which, while the Raghavan-headed SIT has refused to charge sheet powerful politicians and bureaucrats but in which the amicus curaie appointed by the Supreme court, senior advocate, Raju Ramachandran had opined that there was enough evidence to prosecute the former chief minister of Gujarat.

Is Terror financing still Alive despite De-monetisation?

December 6, 2016

If the Khadki Ordnance Factory (OFK) is not manufacturing the anti-riot weapon called "pellet guns, where are law enforcement agencies, particularly the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in J&K, buying these pellet guns from?

Terror financing seems to be alive despite demonetisation/remonetisation drive
The security forces are reported to have told the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that 3,000 pellet bearing cartridges and 8,650 tear gas cannisters have been used to disperse the protesters between July-August. More instances of the use of these "less lethal weapons" have been reported since then. According to recent media reports, the death toll has crossed 90. Ambulances carrying the injured also have borne the brunt of the violence. Hundreds of security force personnel have also sustained sever injuries.

Initially after the demonetisation and remonetisation drive some senior members of the establishment in Delhi proudly declared that this move had silenced the protesters who could no longer be "paid" in the old currency and that the financing of terror had been plugged. However recently, the armed forces are reported to have recovered some new currency notes from amongst the belongings of "terrorists" who reportedly shot dead during operations. This indicates, while the old currency notes have been rendered useless, the channels of fund flow are alive and kicking with the new currency notes doing the job. This is a major cause for concern. The demonetisation drive seems to have treated only the symptom and not the disease of "terror financing" itself.

As an RTI activist, I have since September 2016, trying to elicit details on the sale and the efficacy of anti-riot weapons- particularly pellet guns which have caused severe injuries to hundreds of youth in various parts of Jammu and Kashmir. I had sought information under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) about the quantum and price of sale of pellet guns and cartridges as well reports of any studies conducted about the efficacy of such weapons and ammunition on human beings.

The RTI application originally sent to the Ordnance Factory Board Kolkata (OFB), landed up with the Khadki Ordnance Factory (OFK). Rejecting the RTI application, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), OFK, had invoked the ground of "defence interest of the State" under Section 8(1)(a) and also claimed that the information was in the nature of commercial confidence, trade secret and/or intellectual property and disclosure would adversely affect the competitive position of a third party. So I filed a first appeal against this order with the First Appellate Authority (FAA), OFK.

Now the FAA, OFK has, in his order, clearly stated that:

a) they do not hold reports of any studies regarding the efficacy of anti-riot weapons such as pellet cartridges; and

b) they do not manufacture anti-riot weapons such as pellet guns but only the ammunition used with it.

In response to the FAA's direction to disclose specifications of the pellet cartridges, the CPIO has claimed that disclosure of the sale price and the quantum of sale of pellet cartridges is not in the public interest. The CPIO merely printed out the webpages from the OFB's website regarding the specifications of the pellet cartridges and sent them to me after stamping them with a seal saying "Document issued under the RTI Act".

My first appeal and the order of the FAA as well the CPIO's reply in response to the FAA's directions are in the first 3 attachments. The RTI applications and the CPIO's rejection order apart as well as the communication regarding the transfer of my RTI application from Kolkata to Khadki are in the 4th attachment.

What is problematic with the FAA's order?
The FAA, OFK's order is problematic in many ways:

1) if the Khadki Ordnance Factory (OFK) is not manufacturing the anti-riot weapon called "pellet guns, where are law enforcement agencies, particularly the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in J&K, buying these pellet guns from?;

2) if as the manufacturing entity, OFK does not have any study reports regarding the efficacy and expected impact of pellets on human beings, how are they authorised to manufacture such ammunition and under whose orders? If there is no written record about how such ammunition will impact on the intended targets, how can any standardisation of ammunition be achieved?

OFK is a public sector enterprise which sells arms and ammunition not only to the defence forces and law enforcement agencies but also to civilians in the form of weapons for hunting, sporting and self-defence; Such a body is claiming that they do not have studies which show how such anti-riot ammunition will impact on human beings. This is indeed a very strange admission; and

3) The FAA did not bother to give any ruling on my arguments that the sale and pricing of anti-riot weapons cannot be rejected under the RTI Act under either Section 8(1)(a) or Section 8(1)(d).

What is problematic with the CPIO's response after the FAA's order?
1) While dealing with my RTI application initially, the CPIO had invoked 2 exemptions (listed above) to deny data regarding the pricing and sale of the anti-riot weapons. Realising that the claim cannot be justified, he has now argued that such disclosure will not be in the public interest. As pointed out above, the FAA did not give any ruling on this issue at all, which he should have. Instead, the CPIO is now raising a ground which is not even permitted under the RTI Act for rejecting an RTI application. According to Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, a request for information may be rejected only for reasons contained in the list of exemptions given in Sections 8 and 9. Nothing in those sections authorises a public authority to reject a request for information by holding that its disclosure not in the public interest.

If I had asked information about the manner of deployment of the anti-riot weapons or their distribution across the forces that are authorised to wield such weapons, that would not have been in the public interest to disclose. Even, then it would still have to be linked to the exemptions related to protecting the country's security or ensuring efficient operations of law enforcement agencies to reject the request.

2) The printout of the webpages that the CPIO has sent contain specifications for the 12-bore pellet cartridge that contain rubber pellets. According to several media reports officers engaged with the situation in J&K have commented that they use 9-bore cartridges. Several media reports indicate the use of metal pellets on protesters in J&K. So the information supplied by the CPIO does not match with the information emerging from the ground in J&K. So are the law enforcement agencies in J&K especially, the CRPF sourcing the 9-bore pellet cartridges also from some source other than the Khadki Ordnance Factory? The information disclosed under RTI does not clear up this mystery either.

MHA Committee report on riot control methods remains a secret
Soon after the media reported instances of numerous youngsters being injured severely by pellet guns, resulting in extensive eye damage, many of whom were innocent bystanders, the Government of India announced the formation of a committee to study existing and alternative methods of crowd control. The 7-member committee is said to have submitted its report to the Government. This report has not been officially placed in the public domain. There is an urgent need to make the report public. A similar report prepared in 2010 was made public by the Delhi Police after I filed an RTI application. There is no reason why the 2016 report should not be made public, especially, when organisations like OFK are manufacturing ammunition for riot control without knowledge of what their impact is on the human body.

This is an issue of immense public interest. I hope readers will also start seeking such information from the Central and the State Governments as well as the law enforcement agencies that are operating in J&K.

1...2,3292,3302,331...2,697 Page 2,330 of 2,697

आपने किस अधिकार से लगाई निकासी पर पाबंदी- गुजरात हाईकोर्ट ने RBI से पूछा

बीजेपी नेता 33 लाख के नए नोट और हथियारों के साथ गिरफ्तार

Marx, Gandhi and Modernity – Essays Presented to Javeed Alam

Professor Prabhat Patnaik's short piece on Javeed Alam.

On Ambedkar’s 60th death anniversary, media proved that he was Untouchable in death as in life

There was precious little about the icon in the newspapers or on mainstream websites on Tuesday.

The new Manu

Easy excuses

ब्लैकमनी पर मोदी सरकार के दोहरे मापदंड मंत्रियों को शाहखर्ची की छूट, आम आदमी पर लगाम

Rural Women Are Increasingly Accessing Government Hospitals

With Asthana as Interim CBI Chief, CBI Resembles the Gujarat Bureau of Investigation

With Sharma, Modi and now Asthana, the CBI is filled with acquiescent officers, comfortable to the Modi regime

Is Terror financing still Alive despite De-monetisation?

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT